by ReverseEngineer » Wed 15 Oct 2008, 05:02:08
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cid_Yama', '&')lt;i>That is because most of women jobs at the moment are a kind of "value added" activities</i>
I think you are probably lucky you are not saying this in person. You would be speaking in a higher octave in short order.
The women I know would have your balls served up as an appetizer.
If you want to understand how women become chattel in a world of diminishing resources, you really only have to look at the Harems of Islamic culture and the Polygamy of the Mormons.
As you have to fight more for survival, more young men are conscripted to military service. They die on the battlefield, sent their by the older men in control of the society. The women left behind are gathered together as the sheep are gathered together, and those in power procreate with them.
In the Mormon model, you go out to uncleared land and the young men are sent out to build their farms from scratch. If they succeed in clearing land and building a successful farm, they are rewarded with a wife. Mnay do not succeed of course, they never get any wives.
In our techno society, women are just about as good as men as techno warriors, they can fly jets just as well of course. However, as it devolves downward here and becomes a test of physical strength on the battlefield, for the most part most women INCLUDING Condaleeza Rice won't do too well. Xena Warrior Princess and the Isle of Lesbos notwithstanding, for the most part on a historical level women have not fared well trying to be the dominant force overtly, but rather through their control as breeders and mothers for fighting men have been able to exert their leadership over a society at some times. Cleopatra, Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth I, Indira Ghandi could provide you with some examples of how women have either functioned as whores, wives or mothers to provide a leadership role for a society. Elizabeth though would be the only one I can think of that kept herself in control without dependence that much on men below her, even Cleopatra needed Marc Antony to sustain her power and eventually lost her control to him. My opinion for Elizabeth I was that the Duke of Essex was quite the pawn in her games, and she kept her independence. the only historical Queen though I can identify who might have done so.
As we devolve downward here, it remains to be seen just how the Battle of the Sexes plays itself out. My guess would be in the short term at least, women will not fair too well, but then neither will the men. Which is worse, being forced into prostituiton, or forced out onto the battlefield as cannon fodder? Neither of these are particularly good outcomes for either gender.
Reverse Engineer