>It was men who acquiesced and permitted feminism. If all men (and noble women) now decided feminism needed to be eradicated, it could be done.
I agree with a lot of these observations, but I always have to push back on the narrative that says something like, "Feminism happened because weak men allowed it, and if strong men had not allowe…
>It was men who acquiesced and permitted feminism. If all men (and noble women) now decided feminism needed to be eradicated, it could be done.
I agree with a lot of these observations, but I always have to push back on the narrative that says something like, "Feminism happened because weak men allowed it, and if strong men had not allowed it, it would not have happened, and we just need to persuade people to undo it and then it will be undone."
I suppose I'm more inclined to look at the role of impersonal forces and the individual incentives and pressures that people are placed under -- above all, technological change. If you want to change behavior, change the incentive structure.
There's a universal human tendency, observable in hunter-gatherer societies on up, for marriage and family to be weaker in societies in which women are able to procure enough resources for themselves and a replacement level of progeny without the economic input of a husband. We became this kind of society, in economic terms -- and what do you know, the family became weaker, just like everywhere else.
Our society has drifted in a feminist direction for at least two reasons:
1. The marketplace value of women's strengths (i.e. conscientiousness, agreeableness) has increased relative to the marketplace value of male handiness and upper-body strength. Note that many of these female-favored jobs are not economically useful -- but many of them are.
2. The welfare state has expanded, as it has a tendency to do in all societies that are rich enough to pay for one, which further renders the dedicated "breadwinner" role superfluous.
Here's a great article on the Baby Boom. The basic argument is that society was drifting in a feminist direction prior to the Baby Boom, precisely because women were gaining economic power relative to men. Men then saw an improvement in economic power and saw a burst of gains in education due to the GI Bill, and in response women wanted to marry them.
If you want to weaken feminism, the best path is economic. Change the incentive structure and boost the relative status of men. A lot of this is also related to "cost disease". Inflation in education has been so high, for example, because of the proliferation of useless administrative jobs that are disproportionately staffed by women. But I suspect you'll find effects like this in industries all over the place.
Still, I don't think you'll ever get back to the "good old days", because I think opportunities for women in economically useful jobs have also increased a great deal. The "good old days" contained a lot of inertia from the time -- which ended not so long ago! -- when most people were farmers and only a man could be expected to operate a heavy plow.
>It was men who acquiesced and permitted feminism. If all men (and noble women) now decided feminism needed to be eradicated, it could be done.
I agree with a lot of these observations, but I always have to push back on the narrative that says something like, "Feminism happened because weak men allowed it, and if strong men had not allowed it, it would not have happened, and we just need to persuade people to undo it and then it will be undone."
I suppose I'm more inclined to look at the role of impersonal forces and the individual incentives and pressures that people are placed under -- above all, technological change. If you want to change behavior, change the incentive structure.
There's a universal human tendency, observable in hunter-gatherer societies on up, for marriage and family to be weaker in societies in which women are able to procure enough resources for themselves and a replacement level of progeny without the economic input of a husband. We became this kind of society, in economic terms -- and what do you know, the family became weaker, just like everywhere else.
Our society has drifted in a feminist direction for at least two reasons:
1. The marketplace value of women's strengths (i.e. conscientiousness, agreeableness) has increased relative to the marketplace value of male handiness and upper-body strength. Note that many of these female-favored jobs are not economically useful -- but many of them are.
2. The welfare state has expanded, as it has a tendency to do in all societies that are rich enough to pay for one, which further renders the dedicated "breadwinner" role superfluous.
Here's a great article on the Baby Boom. The basic argument is that society was drifting in a feminist direction prior to the Baby Boom, precisely because women were gaining economic power relative to men. Men then saw an improvement in economic power and saw a burst of gains in education due to the GI Bill, and in response women wanted to marry them.
https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/the-baby-boom
If you want to weaken feminism, the best path is economic. Change the incentive structure and boost the relative status of men. A lot of this is also related to "cost disease". Inflation in education has been so high, for example, because of the proliferation of useless administrative jobs that are disproportionately staffed by women. But I suspect you'll find effects like this in industries all over the place.
Still, I don't think you'll ever get back to the "good old days", because I think opportunities for women in economically useful jobs have also increased a great deal. The "good old days" contained a lot of inertia from the time -- which ended not so long ago! -- when most people were farmers and only a man could be expected to operate a heavy plow.
The marketplace values women's strengths largely to the extent that those strengths aren't operative within households and extended families.