This essay is quite long and interesting. I skimmed through it and will re-read it again, but a few things caught my attention that I wanted to point out and get other people's thoughts on. One thing is this: "Christendom was thus the only civilisation that was at all likely to develop feminism and women’s movements".
Its true that there were historically there were many Christian heretical sects in the Western civilization that were proto-"woke" and proto-"feminist" like Shakers, Cathars, Bogomils, Diggers, etc. This is a common thing throughout the Western history, but it could never take off partly due to the reasons mentioned in the essay.
But I don't think this its the case "feminist" movements are unique to west at all! To give some examples:
"An increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline. The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women ruled Rome. In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab Empire, the women demanding admission to the professions hitherto monopolised by men. ‘What,’ wrote the contemporary historian, Ibn Bessam, ‘have the professions of clerk, tax-collector or preacher to do with women? These occupations have always been limited to men alone.’ Many women practised law, while others obtained posts as university professors. There was an agitation for the appointment of female judges, which, however, does not appear to have succeeded. Soon after this period, government and public order collapsed, and foreign invaders overran the country. The resulting increase in confusion and violence made it unsafe for women to move unescorted in the streets, with the result that this feminist movement collapsed." (Glubb, 1978).
Moreover, it seems that historically, these the status of women fluctuates though not necessarily as part of feminist or anti-feminist movements. For instance, concepts of women's social rights and social status during the Tang Dynasty were notably liberal-minded for the period with men enjoying assertive women and women gaining positions as priestesses, working in politics, etc. (Benn, 2002). However in the next dynasty, the Song Dynasty, the status of women declined and restrictions on women became more pronounced (Ebrey, 2002) partly due to the revival of Confucianism. Perhaps they weren't movements, but depending on the time period, it was different.
Likewise, in the Indic civilization, when Maurya Empire was established the rights of women declined significantly in the mainstream Indo-Aryan speaking regions of India (Dyson, 2018) a contrast to that of the previous Nanda Empire.
Going over to Japan, women's right and participation society has varied over time and social classes. During the Nara period in the 8th century, Japan had an empress, and in the 12th century during the Heian period, women in Japan could inherit property in their own names and manage it by themselves, be educated and allowed to take lovers (Reese, 1996), but from the late Edo period, the status of women declined (Ekken, 2010).
So I think I gave an example of the Islamic, Sinnic, Indic and "Japanoic" civilizations. Though some of them weren't necessarily "feminist movements" in any real sense (they were parts of broader religious/cultural changes, you could consider "woke" being something like that with "feminism" being a subtenant of it though), it offers a glimpse of the changing positions of women due to a confluence of factors.
Anyway, moving on from this... You also wrote:
"Heterosexual men are strongly inclined towards taking notice of, and reacting to, “women’s tears” (for obvious evolutionary reasons.)"
But then who do in some societies men treat women quite badly and for example, beat them if they cry or something along those lines (e.g. parts of Afghanistan)? Even though the explanation is sound to me, I don't think its generalizable. I don't even think this was the case in the West until a few centuries ago in certain parts.
"For obvious evolutionary reasons (the elevated risks of pregnancy and childcare and the need to invest in emotionally intense relationships to sustain child-raising across decades) women are statistically more neurotic, more agreeable, and more concerned with propriety (moralised status) than men are"
I recall reading somewhere that the neuroticism (and possibly the other two) is because of weaker physique, but if women have a stronger physique this doesn't apply. What if robotic exo-skeletons or AI guards or genetic engineering tech or different pharmaceutical interventions become common and we can control things like neuroticism and physical strength. One thing this essay doesn't go into but I wish it did is the new disruptive technologies that could emerge or become adopted in the decades to come (e.g. synthetic wombs, or what if everyone moves into living in the "metaverse"?) and how this will change society; this ties into the following:
"The end of a civilisational cycle that begins with the Christianisation of the Roman Empire in the C4th and C5th. An ending due to women getting unilateral control over their fertility and the consequent collapse in presumptive sex roles as technology fundamentally changes the patterns of risk."
I don't think this is the case. Its not merely an ending due to being able to control fertility as that has existed for a while in various forms (child sacrifice/killing, orphanages, Romans used some type of plant to control it, etc. Early middle ages were relatively promiscuous). Gender roles collapsing is not atypical in declining/dysfunctional societies or during times of disruption. The thing is that due to a confluence of almost all factors, almost none of the American institutions are trusted and functional. But anyway its probably not even possible to establish any new, long lasting norms right now because of the development of so many new technologies. Everything is truly in flux.
"Indeed, the first wave of political correctness coincides with the first cohorts of post-Pill/legal abortion professional women seeking to feminise speech norms"
Does it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't most women work before this? What about the Progressive Era in the USA (1896–1916) in which there were a decent amount of men? Can you count witch hunts in early America as proto-political correctness. It seems like a common theme The modern political correctness started earlier after contact with European schools of thought that mixed post-structuralist and Marxist thought from Europe, a new syncretic ideology began to gain pace in universities and intellectual circles throughout the next few decades, but it just took a little longer for the post-WW2 conditions to set in (need for workers, America being wealthy and powerful, etc.) and America was in a unique position as such. And this was half-supported by certain elites (e.g. feminism -> double work force so more labor -> lower wages, etc. which is good for business so both elite men and women supported it) but other ideas weren't supported as much at the time until parasitic bureaucracies got large enough. Maybe we had political correctness in the past, but we just don't remember it now or consider it as political correctness.
"They constantly display enormous moral entitlement, demanding respect for their moral judgements (and themselves for having them) while despising differing moral judgements and those who make them."
This type of moralising is very common in narcissism. I wrote this before somewhere: Narcisssim will and already is becoming a new global religion (meta-religion/collection of religions): a private, distributed & networked polytheistic & missionary technologically-empowered religion(s) wherein one worships their own "False Self" (i.e. a God). Its networked in that each node is both a God and a worshipper at the same time while the network in totality is THE God. And as such, it will have as many Gods/sects/denominations as there are members (or relatively close). If it goes on, current traditional religions will become sort of like add-ons. For example, someone who is a narcissist and really worships their own "False Self" but is also a "Muslim" will not for example submit to God, but instead will treat God as an extension and will order God around to do things for him. Other spiritual practices will evolve to become more individualistic (so that they can be practiced alone) and will become the "feel good" types of stuff. Many will die out though. And the metaphysics will reflect this
I think this is a good essay and I enjoyed it a lot. I probably missed some stuff and wanted to say more so I'll have to read it again, but overall really great! My comments are kind all over the place, but I want to get other's thoughts on my replies to this.
Sources:
Glubb, John Bagot (1978). The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival. Blackwood.
Benn, Charles (2002), China's Golden Age: Everyday Life in the Tang dynasty, Oxford University Press
Ebrey, Patricia Buckley (2002). Women and the Family in Chinese History. Routledge.
Dyson, Tim (2018), A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day, Oxford University Press
Reese, Lyn (1996) "Heroines: Heian Period (Women in World History Curriculum)". www.womeninworldhistory.com.
Ekken, Kaibara (2010). Onna Daigaku A Treasure Box of Women's Learning. Gardners Books.
Hi,
This essay is quite long and interesting. I skimmed through it and will re-read it again, but a few things caught my attention that I wanted to point out and get other people's thoughts on. One thing is this: "Christendom was thus the only civilisation that was at all likely to develop feminism and women’s movements".
Its true that there were historically there were many Christian heretical sects in the Western civilization that were proto-"woke" and proto-"feminist" like Shakers, Cathars, Bogomils, Diggers, etc. This is a common thing throughout the Western history, but it could never take off partly due to the reasons mentioned in the essay.
But I don't think this its the case "feminist" movements are unique to west at all! To give some examples:
"An increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline. The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women ruled Rome. In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab Empire, the women demanding admission to the professions hitherto monopolised by men. ‘What,’ wrote the contemporary historian, Ibn Bessam, ‘have the professions of clerk, tax-collector or preacher to do with women? These occupations have always been limited to men alone.’ Many women practised law, while others obtained posts as university professors. There was an agitation for the appointment of female judges, which, however, does not appear to have succeeded. Soon after this period, government and public order collapsed, and foreign invaders overran the country. The resulting increase in confusion and violence made it unsafe for women to move unescorted in the streets, with the result that this feminist movement collapsed." (Glubb, 1978).
Moreover, it seems that historically, these the status of women fluctuates though not necessarily as part of feminist or anti-feminist movements. For instance, concepts of women's social rights and social status during the Tang Dynasty were notably liberal-minded for the period with men enjoying assertive women and women gaining positions as priestesses, working in politics, etc. (Benn, 2002). However in the next dynasty, the Song Dynasty, the status of women declined and restrictions on women became more pronounced (Ebrey, 2002) partly due to the revival of Confucianism. Perhaps they weren't movements, but depending on the time period, it was different.
Likewise, in the Indic civilization, when Maurya Empire was established the rights of women declined significantly in the mainstream Indo-Aryan speaking regions of India (Dyson, 2018) a contrast to that of the previous Nanda Empire.
Going over to Japan, women's right and participation society has varied over time and social classes. During the Nara period in the 8th century, Japan had an empress, and in the 12th century during the Heian period, women in Japan could inherit property in their own names and manage it by themselves, be educated and allowed to take lovers (Reese, 1996), but from the late Edo period, the status of women declined (Ekken, 2010).
So I think I gave an example of the Islamic, Sinnic, Indic and "Japanoic" civilizations. Though some of them weren't necessarily "feminist movements" in any real sense (they were parts of broader religious/cultural changes, you could consider "woke" being something like that with "feminism" being a subtenant of it though), it offers a glimpse of the changing positions of women due to a confluence of factors.
Anyway, moving on from this... You also wrote:
"Heterosexual men are strongly inclined towards taking notice of, and reacting to, “women’s tears” (for obvious evolutionary reasons.)"
But then who do in some societies men treat women quite badly and for example, beat them if they cry or something along those lines (e.g. parts of Afghanistan)? Even though the explanation is sound to me, I don't think its generalizable. I don't even think this was the case in the West until a few centuries ago in certain parts.
"For obvious evolutionary reasons (the elevated risks of pregnancy and childcare and the need to invest in emotionally intense relationships to sustain child-raising across decades) women are statistically more neurotic, more agreeable, and more concerned with propriety (moralised status) than men are"
I recall reading somewhere that the neuroticism (and possibly the other two) is because of weaker physique, but if women have a stronger physique this doesn't apply. What if robotic exo-skeletons or AI guards or genetic engineering tech or different pharmaceutical interventions become common and we can control things like neuroticism and physical strength. One thing this essay doesn't go into but I wish it did is the new disruptive technologies that could emerge or become adopted in the decades to come (e.g. synthetic wombs, or what if everyone moves into living in the "metaverse"?) and how this will change society; this ties into the following:
"The end of a civilisational cycle that begins with the Christianisation of the Roman Empire in the C4th and C5th. An ending due to women getting unilateral control over their fertility and the consequent collapse in presumptive sex roles as technology fundamentally changes the patterns of risk."
I don't think this is the case. Its not merely an ending due to being able to control fertility as that has existed for a while in various forms (child sacrifice/killing, orphanages, Romans used some type of plant to control it, etc. Early middle ages were relatively promiscuous). Gender roles collapsing is not atypical in declining/dysfunctional societies or during times of disruption. The thing is that due to a confluence of almost all factors, almost none of the American institutions are trusted and functional. But anyway its probably not even possible to establish any new, long lasting norms right now because of the development of so many new technologies. Everything is truly in flux.
"Indeed, the first wave of political correctness coincides with the first cohorts of post-Pill/legal abortion professional women seeking to feminise speech norms"
Does it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't most women work before this? What about the Progressive Era in the USA (1896–1916) in which there were a decent amount of men? Can you count witch hunts in early America as proto-political correctness. It seems like a common theme The modern political correctness started earlier after contact with European schools of thought that mixed post-structuralist and Marxist thought from Europe, a new syncretic ideology began to gain pace in universities and intellectual circles throughout the next few decades, but it just took a little longer for the post-WW2 conditions to set in (need for workers, America being wealthy and powerful, etc.) and America was in a unique position as such. And this was half-supported by certain elites (e.g. feminism -> double work force so more labor -> lower wages, etc. which is good for business so both elite men and women supported it) but other ideas weren't supported as much at the time until parasitic bureaucracies got large enough. Maybe we had political correctness in the past, but we just don't remember it now or consider it as political correctness.
"They constantly display enormous moral entitlement, demanding respect for their moral judgements (and themselves for having them) while despising differing moral judgements and those who make them."
This type of moralising is very common in narcissism. I wrote this before somewhere: Narcisssim will and already is becoming a new global religion (meta-religion/collection of religions): a private, distributed & networked polytheistic & missionary technologically-empowered religion(s) wherein one worships their own "False Self" (i.e. a God). Its networked in that each node is both a God and a worshipper at the same time while the network in totality is THE God. And as such, it will have as many Gods/sects/denominations as there are members (or relatively close). If it goes on, current traditional religions will become sort of like add-ons. For example, someone who is a narcissist and really worships their own "False Self" but is also a "Muslim" will not for example submit to God, but instead will treat God as an extension and will order God around to do things for him. Other spiritual practices will evolve to become more individualistic (so that they can be practiced alone) and will become the "feel good" types of stuff. Many will die out though. And the metaphysics will reflect this
I think this is a good essay and I enjoyed it a lot. I probably missed some stuff and wanted to say more so I'll have to read it again, but overall really great! My comments are kind all over the place, but I want to get other's thoughts on my replies to this.
Sources:
Glubb, John Bagot (1978). The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival. Blackwood.
Benn, Charles (2002), China's Golden Age: Everyday Life in the Tang dynasty, Oxford University Press
Ebrey, Patricia Buckley (2002). Women and the Family in Chinese History. Routledge.
Dyson, Tim (2018), A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day, Oxford University Press
Reese, Lyn (1996) "Heroines: Heian Period (Women in World History Curriculum)". www.womeninworldhistory.com.
Ekken, Kaibara (2010). Onna Daigaku A Treasure Box of Women's Learning. Gardners Books.