Its because women are weaker. That's it.

That, and women are the ones who get pregnant. That's the foundation for all their traits.

In our current culture, where weakness is a virtue, being weak has become much more significant. But, historically, weak men do not fare as well as women.

However, the problem you are running into is the idea that women are your ally. You present the binary of "equality vs tradition" under the notion that we can just return to gender roles of the past. Even the most "conservative" woman doesn't want that, despite many of them pretending they do.

I don't believe women, even the majority of today's conservative women, are allies and I don't think I implied that.

Historically speaking it's a different matter. I could talk about female anti-feminists, but that's sort of beside the point since the fundamental truth is that women were allies of the prevailing order in every traditional society. Men were not the sole authorities, only the greater one. Women, under the influence of men, had to police themselves, molding the femininity of the next generation while at the same time guarding it. cf Victorian norms, women's societies, sewing circles, midwives, and scores of other female organizations.

For obvious reasons, men can't show teenage girls how to handle their period or teach them how to maintain a home. Either you're letting the fox in the henhouse or they don't have time for it.

Its not in human nature to relinquish power, so why would they ever do so? There is power in appearing to do so, and that's where almost all "right wing" women sit in appearances, but they wouldn't ever actually give up more than a token amount. That's why they always still devour the fruits of "women's lib" greedily no matter how much they cry out about its evils.

Yes, agree.

The only way to "return" to those days is through harsh oppression, which as already outlined by us both isn't going to happen, or complete collapse/rebuild. As such, its almost wasteful to philosophize on it, because its an unactionable idea.

The nature of time is change, and when the time comes it's useful to have a hardened core of ideas to consolidate a movement. If anything, the last couple of decades have been characterized by incredibly rapid change.

In my own Christian denomination, for example, the movement to allow female ordination had its high water mark a few years ago when it was narrowly defeated. The global backlash is on the rise against the vapid American membership.

The erosion of female-specific initiatives and scholarship programs would be a very significant, but realistic start. On an equal playing field, women and female influence will be easily outcompeted in male careers (which is most of them).

Its because women are weaker. That's it.

That, and women are the ones who get pregnant. That's the foundation for all their traits.

In our current culture, where weakness is a virtue, being weak has become much more significant. But, historically, weak men do not fare as well as women.

However, the problem you are running into is the idea that women are your ally. You present the binary of "equality vs tradition" under the notion that we can just return to gender roles of the past. Even the most "conservative" woman doesn't want that, despite many of them pretending they do.

I don't believe women, even the majority of today's conservative women, are allies and I don't think I implied that.

Historically speaking it's a different matter. I could talk about female anti-feminists, but that's sort of beside the point since the fundamental truth is that women were allies of the prevailing order in every traditional society. Men were not the sole authorities, only the greater one. Women, under the influence of men, had to police themselves, molding the femininity of the next generation while at the same time guarding it. cf Victorian norms, women's societies, sewing circles, midwives, and scores of other female organizations.

For obvious reasons, men can't show teenage girls how to handle their period or teach them how to maintain a home. Either you're letting the fox in the henhouse or they don't have time for it.

Its not in human nature to relinquish power, so why would they ever do so? There is power in appearing to do so, and that's where almost all "right wing" women sit in appearances, but they wouldn't ever actually give up more than a token amount. That's why they always still devour the fruits of "women's lib" greedily no matter how much they cry out about its evils.

Yes, agree.

The only way to "return" to those days is through harsh oppression, which as already outlined by us both isn't going to happen, or complete collapse/rebuild. As such, its almost wasteful to philosophize on it, because its an unactionable idea.

The nature of time is change, and when the time comes it's useful to have a hardened core of ideas to consolidate a movement. If anything, the last couple of decades have been characterized by incredibly rapid change.

In my own Christian denomination, for example, the movement to allow female ordination had its high water mark a few years ago when it was narrowly defeated. The global backlash is on the rise against the vapid American membership.