defining it as 'contributing to society' is part of the problem. its all about what you produce for the liberal mind. creating a stable society is about hierarchy and traditional gender roles. of course I agree that once you give all men equal rights it's just one step to full female rights, which is why female voting rights quickly followed equal rights for all men, and in fact any woman who owned property often could still vote before "woman's suffrage". Its unfortunate that we can have all men be equal and still keep the gender roles, but weaker men seem to use their political power to gain status with women in the short term, and so they vote for equal rights for example in order to appease women. In generally, however, your immediate jumping to attacking me is part of the problem, men shouldn't attack each other unless its necessary, they should cooperate, lack of male cooperation only makes feminism stronger.>>372301
Of course its different. I'm not sure I was offering a "cyclical theory" only stating that the structures of civilization depend on certain things and by removing those things we break things down. It was more of an argument that we make the same mistakes over and over again and never remember. Even the bible mentions this in Isaiah 3:12, describing presumably an israel where "women ruled over". I forget the source, but it was also said that near the end of the roman empire "Rome ruled the world, but women ruled rome." So much is lost if its not explicitly stated in some surviving text, and people like you just assume its not true I suppose. Another example is the Arab empire, which was moving to give women a role in Islam and appoint them as judges and teachers before 'suddenly' being overwhelmed by barbarians due to weakness.