Why did men ever give up the power?

As all thinking persons know, the past was a dark time for women in our civilization. They were routinely beaten, raped, sold into slavery, and always and everywhere kept in total bondage to men so that men could act out their cruel and sadistic fantasies on them. Women couldn’t own property, had no lives of their own, and were kept under lock and key by their father until it was determined for them whom they would marry, at which time they would become the property of their husbands, who would be almost guaranteed to beat them and rape them regularly, and their entire lives from that point forward would consist of nothing but the domestic slavery of cooking, cleaning, and bearing children, until they died. (All one has to do is read the many threads on this very board to learn that this was the case.) Now, fortunately, women are much closer to having equal rights, they can work and receive something resembling equal pay, and are free to travel and have abortions if they get pregnant but don’t want a child.

The odd thing is that the past state of affairs, in which women were slaves, is usually said to result from male power and to have been desireable for men. The question for debate, then, is why did men ever allow change? If our civilization was a patriarchy, and men had absolute power, surely such things as the feminist revolution couldn’t have happened without their approval. So, does it follow that the cabal of men who controlled our society didn’t really like things the way they were after all? Or did men decide to be nice and stop enslaving women even though they did like things they old way?

You posit from a poor position. A wife, at least in Western society, did not have the status in a marriage that a servant or a slave did. She was valued quite a bit more by her husband as an asset to the household, and more often than not cared for and loved.

That being the case, she had a considerable amount of moral authority and influence that allowed her to lobby for more rights and power as time went on.

You don’t think much of men, do you, gardener?

I agree completely with Mr. Moto. I’d also like to add that the beginning of the major women’s movement came during a time of upheaval in all of America, what with the 'nam protests, the civil rights movement, people’s lack of faith in their government, and a general distaste for the ideals of the '50s that lead to. (Caveat: poster was born in the '80s, might need someone to set him straight.)

What I’m getting it is asking men how they “allowed” women to get power is asking the government how they “allowed” people to get outraged over Vietnam or how white folks “allowed” blacks a seat on the front of the bus. At a time when social change was rampant, there was surely a sense of empowerment present. Large protests abounded & people united for common goals. Stopping any or all of these movements would have been tyranical, and last I checked, Americans do live in a democracy, albeit an imperfect one.

Though the OP contains various factual errors (its not like the entire history of human kind has been the dark ages for women until the last few decades), its probably still a valid question. Why did men in western society finally loosen their hold on power and allow women to participate in the voting process.

At least in the US I think its been part of a trend from the beginning to grant wider and wider inclusion of the franchise to a broader group of people. It started off as a very restricted group (white landowners who were also citizens and fully adult) and has continually broadened in scope (to all white males, to include more definitions of what ‘white’ is, to immigrants, to women and minorities, to younger citizens…) and continues to this day, at least in debate (look at the debate over whether or not folks in prison should be able to vote).

-XT

The role working women played during World War II had to have a major impact as well.

…or allowing gays to marry.

Scratch the “that lead to.” part of my post. I was going somewhere with that phrase, saw the boss walking by, abandoned ship, then forgot the wonders of the delete button

To be fair, this debate occurs largely because people have realized that, intentionally or not, the War on Some Drugs and mandatory sentencing have become a tool to disenfranchise the poor, blacks and other minorities from participating in the voting process.

From what I’ve read, the govenment mounted a major propoganda effort after WWII to get women into the homes and away from the factories, which was highly successful.

The real point is, in a modern tech society, the intellectual contribution of women and minorities is a real advantage, so it’s good to have women free to participate in careers if they’re so inclined. That’s why sexist pig-dog societies like Saudi Arabia will never succeed agaisnt us. All their Madam Curies and Hillary Clintons are in some damn harem, unable to participate. Sucks for them, sucks for all of Saudi Arabia too.

– George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

I think it’s unhelpful to characterize the history of women as being forcefully overpowered by men. Males and females are not adversaries competing for power.

The truth is, for most of Western history, society has said that women are inferior to men. And both genders believed it, and participated in perpetuating these beliefs. Feminism shouldn’t be characterized as a power struggle, but as a centuries long attempt to overturn societal ideals of gender. Read your Wollstonecraft. Her harshest words are reserved for women.

Once people started to become convinced that women could responsibly handle power, they had no problem gradually allowing them to have it.

One specific factor which prompted women’s suffrage in the United States was the settlement of the west. Territories were competing for settlers and some legalized women’s suffrage to encourage settlers.

While the OP is more than a little over the top, it is still a valid question. And it’s wrong to speak of the “women’s movement” as having begun in the latter half of the 20th century-- that was just the culmination of efforts started long before. Giving women the right to vote was clearly a major milestone and led almost inevidtably to increasing equality.

I’d say that modern science had a lot to do with this. In the 19th century and earlier it was seriously thought that women were intellectually inferior to men in much the same way that non-whites were inferior to whites. As scientists addressed the issue, this folk wisdom was dsplaced by factual data which simply didn’t support the received wisdom of centuries.

In Europe, it’s generally dated to WWI, when able-bodied men where all busy killing each other. Plus, given the enormous number of fatalities, there were still a need for them in factories, etc… even after the war.

There are so many factors. First, the push for women’s rights in the U.S. goes back at least as far as the Revolutionary War, as evidenced in Abigail Adams’s letters to her husband.

Once women achieved the right to vote in the 20th century, the fact that we are a slight numerical majority certainly had something to do with changing laws and practices. In addition, the male advantage of strength is not of great importance in most of contemporary society.

Finally, the power is far from completely relinquished. How many women hold CEOs and other power positions? More than there used to be, but nowhere near a proportional number. In more subtle ways, a man of sixty may be a distinguished grey-haired gentleman, and may exert significant power. A woman of sixty had better dye her hair.

Look back to after the American Civil War. I believe one of the after affects was women getting more credit and property ownership rights, mainly for the convenience of men.

Menocchio sure has some good points, given the poster’s location. :slight_smile:

That’s it in a nutshell, really. When everyone (or at least, most people) in a society agree to the truth of an idea, it’s going to continue until it’s challenged. Many men supported women’s sufferage as well, when the issue was raised.

I can’t remember who originally offered up this idea, but it’s stuck with me. And damn it, my phrasing of it isn’t very good:

There is an enormous gulf between an idea that has not been conceived, and its being assumed impossible. But there’s only a tiny jump between considering a thing impossible and considering it possible.

For many centuries, it wasn’t even conceived that women were the equals of men. Once it was conceived, it didn’t take long (relatively) to move from that notion being held as untrue to true.

There is no reason to sit here postulating. There are plenty of countries where women’s role is in transition right now for us to look at. In India, for example, you are just as likely to meet a young, opinionated, politically active university girl as a girl covered head-to-toe who is forbidden to leave the house.

I think the press is a big factor. Things like honor killing which were once sad community events become large scale outrages. It starts being okay to speak out against something that was once never really talked about. Women stop being isolated (and isolation is one of the biggest ways to control women) and start seeing themselves as part of a community. Once a group has a voice it’s hard to take that away.

Government/economic forces are also at work. Say what you will about the Chinese government, their concentrated campaign to equalize men and women has been pretty effective. In the US, our big moment was women entering the workforce in WWII. Of course, this doesn’t always work. The attempt to ban veils in Iran was disasterous, and led to women joining the other side.

Finally, education is a big thing. In many countries a family simply can’t afford to educate the whole family. Only the most promising kids are sent to school, and those tend to be the boys. Many parents would love to educate their girls as well, but when it comes to educating someone who will one day have to support a family and educating someone who can have a comfortable life based on domestic skills, the guys win. As access to education increases, women’s access to education is increased. Of couse, education alone won’t do it. I’ve met women with advanced degrees who still spent their lives in smoky kitches slaving away to cook for the extended family. But education helps by giving women option outside of marriage and options for getting out of bad marriages.

I think much of it is more simple than a lot of people make it out to be. Men didn’t hold women down until everyone became enlightened. Technology has allowed women to have much more freedom now than any time in history. People often needed lots of kids in times past. That dictated that women spent much of their prime years having children and taking care of children. Household tasks were difficult with some chores like laundry taking over a whole day. Working outside of the home simply wasn’t an option for the women of the families. The women really did need to be quite good at sewing, spinning, cooking etc. for the survival of their families. Roles were delineated based on who was best suited to what task.

Men were the ones that earned most of the money outside of the home. It made sense for them to control most of the money and own the property. Men tended to have more education because, again, they were needed to work outside the home and needed that education to support their families and conduct business transactions.

The stereotypical female housewife of the 50’s and 60’s was a transient phenomenon. Before that, women were actually needed for the full-time duties that a household required and gender roles were built around that.

I greatly dispute the OP’s characterization of the way men treated women as well. Human nature has not changed in those years. Men loved their wives and daughters as much as they do now.