China’s gonna be a phenomenal world leader.

  • corgiwithalaptop [any, love/loves]@hexbear.netM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    10 months ago

    Did a single women’s liberatory movement succeed before development of the industrial capacity and the incentive capital provides to the national bourgeoisie to see things change?

    I finished Graeber’s “History of Everything” not too long ago, and want to say this gets touched on, and the answer is ‘yes.’

    That said, I gave my copy to my dad and would need to go page through it to cite that, so I very well may be wrong. Plus, it would have been centuries ago anyways, so not sure it’s really relevant to your initial question.

    • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      10 months ago

      Second this. The situation of Women in the 19th century is very deeply tied to the whole “global European empire of terror” and doesn’t necessarily reflect conditions in other cultures at other times.

      • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        10 months ago

        There seems to be a lot of active socialists in my part of the country and historic support for women’s and queer rights, I wonder if it has to do with knowledge of indigenous cultures from my region? Several tribes active here had a matriarchal governance structure, they would have rotating councils of women meet to discuss issues and distribution of resources in what could be described as a socialist system. Nearly all political knowledge in the west is rooted in white imperialist ideologies, my heart aches thinking where we could be today if egalitarian or socialist tribes were allowed to flourish.

    • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      10 months ago

      That said, I gave my copy to my dad and would need to go page through it to cite that, so I very well may be wrong. Plus, it would have been centuries ago anyways, so not sure it’s really relevant to your initial question.

      I’d be quite interested in what existing power these women had in order to force whatever concessions they achieved. I am betting on it being a quite different scenario, but relying on certain conditions that these women today do not have.

      I’m convinced that a major aspect of the property relationship under capital here is that it almost entirely traps women with no means of helping themselves. Getting them more means will drastically alter their ability to pursue their own movements.

      • corgiwithalaptop [any, love/loves]@hexbear.netM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        10 months ago

        property relationship under capital

        Yeah, I’m thinking of societies that became matriarchal through some means long long before any sort of European-centric (probably not the right way to but it, but my words are failing me here, apologies) resemblance to economic systems came about. I’m thinking of areas like Mexico, Central America, and South America maybe about 1500 years ago.

        Anyways, it’s a really good book, and I’d absolutely recommend it! It’s just…a LOT. Hard to really remember specific things from it off the top of my head, especially when I’m sleep deprived, but it is well cited if you download an ebook version.

        Feels like I’m rambling now emilie-shrug