I really don't like that the graphs aren't across the same period of time.
I didn't notice until you pointed it out. Because why wouldn't they be??
Because there's lies, damned lies, and statistics...
Presumably they are starting wherever the trend "started", although I'd like to see what it was doing before that to see if this is an unusual trend or not
I'm guessing the data sets they used were collected at different start times and they didn't want to truncate it
yes thats probably why but then maybe they should've left a white space instead
Oh boy liberal vs conservative, what a wide variety of political opinion allowed for by the "financial times"
I don't think they use the definition of liberal that you think they're using.
Also, outside of opinion pieces, the FT tends to be fairly central, as it's generally purchased by people who want information to make financial decisions with.
FT is pretty solid when it comes to data analysis like this. The point is to show a specific trend not to encompass all the data in the sources.
I think they understood "liberal" to mean "classical liberal" which obviously would have the issue they point out. But FT seems to be using "liberal" to mean "progressive" or something like that.
Yes, these graphs don't many any sense other than generating clicks.
I don't know about beautiful data. That's scary data :/
Is this American liberal or real liberal?
It’s Burgerland liberal, which is center-left to right. Burgerland conservative is right to fash.
Or American conservative or real conservative
It’s relative to the nationstate’s domestic policies in question. And just a heads up, I know when people make statements like this it just reveals a lack of understanding regarding foreign countries’ domestic politics. However, it’s also important to point out that the meme itself is incredibly ethnocentric and is fundamentally based on a dismissal of the validity of political discourse outside Western Europe and North America. You don’t mean to be racist, right?
This “meme” is not ethnocentric. Liberalism has a definition. The meaning became lost to Americans thanks to two red scares and a cold war. So now you have centrists like Bernie Sanders calling themselves socialist, which is absolutely not true.
"American" is hardly an ethnicity (except maybe if you are referring to native Americans of course), so this has nothing to do with racism. Secondly I assume the author of the comment is refering to the simple fact that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have drastically different connotations in Europe and the US.
not surprising. the american right is specifically catered to address male grievances.
not fix these grievances mind you, but exploit them
And how do they exploit them?
By keeping them at a hysterical fever pitch, 24/7.
Amplifying ignorance, weaponizing mental illness.
That is the right wing and republicans, with every profane breath.
This data is the World world, not just "America world".
Also, if men are going right, then the left needs to step up their offering.
Much like the left caters to women and minorities.. good point.
Here in South Korea - Both the liberal and conservative party are very conservative. It wasn't until 10-15 years ago that women could even be the "leader" of the house. So the delta in conservative/liberal is more likely to do with economic/war policies with the North than much else (since men get conscripted, and North policies is one of the key differentiators between the 2 parties)
Wouldn't it be men making the decision on conscription policies though? A more liberal / less sexist government would be more likely to bin that.
The key difference I tend to see between men and women's issues is that men's issues are often caused by other men in power. Feminism, ironically enough, can also help with a lot of problems disenfranchised men have.
Sorry I'm rambling a bit.
South Korea also has one of the biggest anti-feminism movements in the world. They just eliminated the gender ministry and rolled back protections for women. Not coincidentally, South Korea is Jordan Peterson’s biggest audience outside the US.
The translation of "gender ministry" is completely misleading, I don't know why they made it that in English because that's not what it is. In Korean it's "여성가족부" which means "Woman's family department"
right. Korean politics seem to come down to "aid vs embargo". moon jae in was on the aid side, right? I haven't followed the current prez, what's their deal?
President Yoon is a fascist that got into power by targeting women and disabled people.
shcoking, women arent a fan en masse of being 'tradwifes' to tate blowhards
This data is poorly presented and unclear. It may well have some really useful insights, but it's definitely not beautiful.
I'm not sure how to even interpret it.
I came to the comments and still don't.
At that point it's barely data either.
This data is anything but beautiful. Its horrendously laid out. Not intuitive in the slightest.
That's on purpose. It's a conservative opinion piece.
Aha, that explains the weird positioning of the zero axis.
If only there was a way to talk about political ideology that indicated some kind of direction, then we could orient the data in such a way that the arrows went in the direction of that ideology.
Oh good, I'm better than the average man in something.
This is an opinion piece they are really really reaching with.
Conservatives have been running this for a few days now but it just doesn't add up. At least for the US it flies in the face of all published polling, including what they claim as sources. Unless you look at Gen Z men skewing independent and take that as them becoming more conservative because you only see the political spectrum as D/I/M.
But that's not what being an independent means. It isn't a party. It's literally not having a party.
I forgot to add, there's also the Roe effect. The overturning of Roe has pushed women left in the US.
Until there's a liberal space for men, it's going to cause them to flock to lying conservatives. There, they will be indoctrinated by weird, stupid conservative bullshit that has nothing to do with any of this.
The left is the only place that is safe to open up as a man.
The right is only safe if you fit a very specific definition of manliness, one that is unrealistic. However that illusion sends millions of the gullible and impressionable chasing after an unobtainable standard.
On the far-right you'll get punched if you like making caramel and baking cakes. The close right just calls you a slur instead.
There are few things more alienating to the wide range of male expression than the right wing.
I grew up as a conservative and was never accepted. Opening up, being emotionally vulnerable, expressing "feminine" (ie non traditional) interests: every time it lost me any sort of male friendship. I was excluded, mocked and called homophobic slurs.
I'm a cisgender straight white man but because I was a square peg to their traditional round hole I was an outcast.
The right is the cause of male depression and loneliness. It enforces the gender norms that make men feel they have to be a rock, provide for family, die for their country, shut up about their feelings.
The only safe place for men to open up is on the left.
Gangs are inclusive and welcoming even if they haze you and commit crimes. People who feel left out gravitate toward unconventional solutions to conventional problems.
Starting by removing the association between masculinity and being a bigot by changing male social behavior seems to be the logical first step. The change absolutely has to come from within. Starting by not tolerating it when your buddies say bigoted shit seems insignificant but is a huge step in the positive direction, and every small change counts.
There isn’t? Millions of liberal men can man just fine every day just out in public.
What are you missing?
So you don’t think there are any issues with how men are treated on the left?
As progressive as the left can be, men have been left behind and are still often expected to ‘just be a man’, while dealing with double standards and sometimes being treated like they’re inherently bad.
Edit: Copying what vzq has said to me for visibility, as this is the exact problem. Do I sound like the angry toddler in this discussion?
“I want to be treated fairly and based on how I act, and yet I don’t get that.” You are being treated based on how act. You act like a spoiled toddler that thinks he’s owed some consideration by strangers.
Millions of liberal men can man just fine every day just out in public.
That is true, absolutely. And one must not diminish the situation of women under the patriarchy by any means.
Unfortunately, the patriarchy damages all of us in different ways. That does not contradict feminism but, in my estimation, completes the view of the patriarchy, it's effects, and how we perpetuate it generation after generation. I think if we wish to be anti-sexist and pro-feminist and ever hope to abolish the patriarchy, we must understand it as fully as possible.
If you care to explore the topic further, "The Will to Change" by Bell Hooks might be worth a read.
What is a liberal space for men? That means nothing.
Liberal, as in, believing in liberty. Freedom. How many mens spaces do you know of, where a man is completely free to open up, with full liberty and freedom from immediate consequences, about feelings they may have inside of them?
There's actually not a lot. It's a reflection of masculine indoctrination, where men in many places are made to feel like they almost need to be ready to become a soldier at any moment. Guarded, careful. It's no good, unless your country is actually at war.
Until there’s a liberal space for men, it’s going to cause them to flock to lying conservatives.
I mean, they/we also could create these spaces for us, much in the same way women did (and many other groups). And of course it's easier to fall for reactionary groups when liberal groups are less visible, but it's still a decision to follow their bullshit.
Shoutout to [email protected] (and similar spaces)
I mean, they/we also could create these spaces
We had these spaces, they were accused of sexism, and forced to open up to everyone, where the female spaces stayed all female. Boyscouts and Girlscouts comes to mind as an example.
As soon as men try to organize and speak out we get called sexist. If men wanted to start a men only club like women are allowed they would be forced to let women in. Just look at the boy scouts (ignoring the pedophiles) they were forced to allow girls but the girl scouts don't have to allow boys. Males can't have anything male only.
It would be great if there was mens clubs to just hang out, drink, talk, play games things like that. In fact there was and they were HUGE but men aren't allowed them now.
It would be great if boys could have that. Almost like a girls scouts but for boys.
I agree with this. On the left we do a bad job with men, because so much discourse is critical of men. We push them away.
You can’t expect people to hear “men are the problem” and not take it personally. Imagine saying something similar about any marginalized group.
We live in a time where telling someone they have privilege is practically an insult, because a) many people use their lack of privilege as a point of pride and identity, and b) the masculine narrative of “self made” is inherently at odds with the idea of privilege.
So modern leftist (and intersectional feminist) discourse is at odds with masculinity in an irreconcilable way.
We can’t just leave men behind. What we need to do is start talking about privilege and about men in a more fair way, explicitly acknowledging that just being a white cis man doesn’t mean you have it easy in life, economic considerations absolutely exist and class consciousness is important. We need to stop others within the left when they say “men bad”, or more importantly, when they say something that will be perceived as “men bad”.
This isn’t an issue of a couple people whose feelings are hurt, a huge huge proportion of the world is being pushed into darkness and we need to fucking do something about it.
Well-written response.
I agree and had a tangentially-related conversation the other day. I believe in feminism generally, yet as a man, I see the name as a disservice to its cause in the same way that white privilege instantly makes many white people defensive. It was revolutionary in the time it was created, but revolutionaries aren't always great marketers (ie: 'Defund The Police' starting out as a means to redistribute governmental resources but becoming a rallying cry for Republicans) There is a modern day irony that as we try to make society more gender neutral and non-judgmental, the definition of equality is purposefully labeled after women which (un)consciously reframes masculinity in a negative light. In my limited understanding, I feel like early feminism tackled the 'othering' of women but never had a plan for if/when the pendulum swung and society started to (un)consciously favor them more in certain areas.
At the same time, it's hard to have a nuanced conversation about semantics when there's a non-trivial amount of the slighted group who wish harm/death on you solely because of your gender/race/religion. As a man, I can say that a lot of the Men's Liberation/MGTOW people I've experienced tend to be toxic, misogynistic and insecure AF. Their foremost definition of themselves could be classified as 'in opposition to women"(There are radical feminist who view the world similarly FYI). It happens in religion too, and even the lack of religion as well.. I've seen atheist forums that really just repost memes & news articles ridiculing religious fanatics instead of self-actualizing. The same thing happens re: politics generally too.
TL;DR: From a nuanced perspective, there are ways to make equality more marketable so that it doesn't demoralize those who are expected to relinquish power/privilege (or to just generally become an ally). At the same time, it's hard to negotiate w/ terrorist/bad-faith actors.
I agree with a lot of what you say.
My view is that to abolish it, we need to better and more fully understand the patriarchy and its effects on everyone.
First and foremost we must come to see how the unprivileged are damaged. But we can't stop there.
The question about men isn't about whether men are or aren't the problem (because it isn't that simple). Rather, it is in what ways men are affected positively and negatively by the patriarchy and how they do or don't enforce and perpetuate the patriarchy and affect women and other groups, unwittingly or otherwise.
Since we are all steeped in this culture, that same analysis has to be done for everyone or we will never make meaningful progress.
As we continue to understand and work on issues women face, we can and must at the same time look at the whole picture.
This is it.
Men underperform in things like education and work.
Who gets all the help? Women.
There is so much toxic feminism that doesn't get attention. A male only shelter got shut down by me because the feminists protested so much until it got shut down.
Surely this is intersectional though right? Not all men are the same or have the same experience of political issues. I can see how straight white cis men might feel like these spaces aren't for them. But queer men might feel differently about this. Black men also.
Also if you feel like existing spaces aren't for you, then free to create your own spaces. There's nothing holding you back.
Nearly all leftist spaces welcome straight white cis men. Anti-feminists are not welcome.
Counterpoint - men need to be less hung up on gender.
There's plenty of liberal spaces for people even if not exclusively for men.
As a guy, I don't need a sign outside saying "Open for men" to know I can go into a store, just "Open" suffices.
While there are aspects of my life that are informed by my biology and its social construct, it's one of the least defining aspects of who I am as a person. I don't need it specially recognized.
I'd much rather live in a world where there's spaces for "people who like RPGs and fantasy" or "people who like tech" over "people who identify as male." I have a ton in common with the former two, irrespective of gender identities, and very little in common with the latter other than fairly superficial things.
"Hey, pee standing up? Me too! We have so much in common we should be friends. Oh, you want to meet up at the bar to watch the latest hockey game? Yeah, that sounds...fun..."
The very idea of a "liberal space for men" is antithetical to my sense of liberalism. We should be liberated from arbitrary notions of identity, not reinforced into them.
And I don't like how sparse the data points are but they went with a wobbly interpolated curve anyway.
It looks like they only asked about five people in the UK.
I personally don't like how the top left one starts at 2005, unlike every other graph, but they all have the same x scale. (I nitpick things sometimes)
Is it just me or are those the typical US-centric terms! If so, I'd trust those numbers even less than I already do because they moved the timespans between the graphs.
It’s just you, these are bog standard political science terms.
Okay, let me rephrase that: is it just me or is the application of these terms typical US-centric? "Liberals" in Germany are definitely not the opposite of conservatives. Quite the contrary. The liberals are the go-to ally for the conservatives to form governments here.
Like, do you actually know that? You've said so under different comments here and you sound confident in being right, but.. Could you maybe point me to where you get the 'bog Standart' poli science definition from? And how this applies to the terms used in the study? I'm sceptical towards the use of (only) liberal vs conservative, but would believe your take if it could be more than a convenient opinion.
I don't trust numbers to gauge someone's political stand point either
Just doesn't seem like a good way to get useful data
They missed the chance to rotate these graphs vertically..
Looks like the constant insidious propaganda is working as expected.
That's not an ideology gap, that's feminism vs machism, by the look of it.
Got any reading you'd recommend? All I'm finding is some links to Ernst Mach, but they aren't very helpful in their definition of "Machism." Is it related to machismo in any way?
I quickly translated the French word. It's how some people can hate women and believe they're inferior or crazy or whatever.
What I'm saying in my comment is that the graphs seem much more about feminism vs the opposite than it is about conservatism vs whatever else. Now there is a link between thee two. But saying it's conservative vs progress is abusive imo and missing the problem.
I don’t know how true this is. In my own experience most men I’ve interacted with in the past 10 years are more and more central and less solidly conservative over time. The trend seems to be moving towards liberal. Of course that could be where I live (suburbs in a 800K+ US city).
It’s probably your own bias within your social circle, your own little world. This data is based on national.
Probably
That's a reflection of your social circle.
Trump had more white female and Hispanic voters his second run than the first.
I would take this data with a grain of salt. I'm sure this is self reported yes/no or excludes political vote markers. I'm not sure how they compiled the data when it shows it was simple yes/no to am I conservative or liberal at a glance.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/30/new-trump-poll-women-hispanic-voters-497199
More info because why not:
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/09/1053929419/feel-like-you-dont-fit-in-either-political-party-heres-why
For those who are actually using this data to make commentary on anything—I feel like it’s poorly represented and not at all adequately powered. I would take this with a grain of salt
What happened in South Korea in 2015?
Gamergate idiology hit hard there. There's recently been some conspiracy nonsense about a hand gesture in games there.
There’s recently been some conspiracy nonsense about a hand gesture in games there.
par for the course: https://www.npr.org/2019/09/26/764728163/the-ok-hand-gesture-is-now-listed-as-a-symbol-of-hate
the government stopped putting the chemicals in the water that makes the frogs gay
@BuddyTheBeefalo i wonder how good are those data, and how much overfiitting is going on...
I'm surprised the UK still has net positive movement considering we house the Queen of TERFdom.
With the shit show the conservative government has been recently I'm not surprised.
Looks like it went pretty Conservative around the Corbyn era. This is misleading to people who probably think that Tories and Labour are the equivalent of Republicans and Democrats. If they want to show left vs right they should be looking at people leaning towards the likes of UKIP and the Brexit party.
Well, perhaps the UK has a more... Traditional liberalism. One that sees the new king as a Young (albeit a tad geriatric) whippersnapper, you know? A liberalism that tries to conserve the olden times.
Women have always saved the world
I don’t remember them being the overwhelming force in the allied military to kill the Nazis or the Confederates.
If I am reading this correctly, men drifting towards conservative and women drifting towards liberal?
That would reflect the culture found in apps - I feel like men with andrew tate and things like truth social/rumble/kick and women drift more towards stuff like reddit/tiktok/instagram where you can usually see a lot more liberal idealogy.
The term you missed to use was, "echo chambers." Both both and all.
I've tried so many different social media platforms and every single one has been an echo chamber for their little slice of hell.
Lemmy just happens to be FOSS tech and liberal stuff. They're all echo chambers for sure.
i sorry about women in south korea
its the opposite in my household
Lmao same
Does religion play into this?
In "middle America", it's the church that has usually lured well-meaning women into believing they are under siege, in peril like never before in the history of mankind. Same thing happened to my mother starting in the 70s with snake oil salesmen like Jerry Falwell, Jim Swagart, Jim Bakker and Pat Robertson.
The non-stop message is that they are always under attack, it's always the end of days, the antichrist is always already among us, The Rapture™️ is just around the corner, and they are the chosen ones... living in constant fear of the fairytale boogeyman and calling it a privilege, their minds have been shackled and atrophied by a state of perpetual red alert that Satan is everywhere, that their loved ones will spend an eternity in hell.
EDIT: tweaked a sentence for clarity
Not really. I am athiest and she has beliefs now but does not got to a church but we both started agnostic. I would say its more youtube (with foxesque influences) and her upbringing (misogynist father although you would think that would have the opposite effect). That combined with the fact she is completely reliant on me due to health issues and honestly the most conservative stuff I have seen come from folks who can't really stand on their own ironically. I think they are looking for it all to be someone else's fault.
Damn. The ruling class sure was successful in creating new wedges to divide their work slaves. It is not even only con and lib, there are so many more ingroups nobody needs and "sOcIaL mEdIa" is the tool to brainwash us into hating each others guts.
I think what’s more interesting from those charts isn’t just the divergence between genders - it’s that (with the obvious exception of S Korea - what on earth is going on in that country??) men’s attitudes have slightly trended more conservative whereas women’s attitudes have radically changed to more liberal.
From what little I know it has to do with them coming from a more conservative point in recent history. But women are fast tracking feminism. Men never got the message and still expected their wife to do the traditional stuff so women stopped marrying.
So now there's a big reactionary movement.
The older generation still skews largely conservative, and they (particularly the dreaded mother-in-law) expect certain behavior out of young, married women. When a couple get married, there is a prevailing attitude that the woman becomes a part of the man's family and is expected to attend all their family gatherings, do a shit ton of cooking while the men get drunk and play games, and essentially forsake their own families. The number of grown men I've met that don't know how to do a fucking load of laundry is disturbingly high because they're molly-coddled (largely by their mothers) their entire lives. Particularly first-sons who are the only children who really matter to a lot of Korean parents and grandparents. Many women are - rightfully - rebelling against this. As are a lot of younger, more enlightened men.
Men on the other hand, are also rightfully upset that they are required to join the military for two years, usually right around the time they would be attending university. Which is giving women an edge in some aspects since they graduate sooner and don't have their education interrupted by a military stint. Pretty sure the younger generation is in favor of getting rid of mandatory military service, but again, the older generation won't have it. Especially with the North up there rattling their limp sabers constantly.
Basically, old conservatives ruin everything.
-
Looks like I need to move to the UK
-
So what this is saying is that women are going to save our collective asses.
-
Perpetuates the false dichotomy of a linear political spectrum of either liberal or conservative and that in and of itself is one of the reasons for these trends. Liberalism has nothing to offer men. Leftism does.
You might as well be asking men how much they are willing to sacrifice for others vs. look after their own interests. When the inequality gap widens and the majority live below average economically, don't you think people will tend to become more selfish? That's all these charts show.
Conservatism is essentially synonymous with patriarchy and on a very shallow level, it's easy to see how men would choose that over the status quo. That will surely be better for men than this slow attrition of status that comes with ever increasing wealth concentration. This isn't true but it is an obvious conclusion.
The real question, which this survey completely ignores, conveniently, is what we should all be doing together to better the status quo for all. Because I believe almost everyone except a small and shrinking fraction agrees that current trends are not working for anyone.
Perpetuates the false dichotomy of a linear political spectrum of either liberal or conservative and that in and of itself is one of the reasons for these trends
the graph explicitly takes 1 dimension of the spectrum to look at it in isolation. This is exactly what single graphs do best.
which this survey completely ignores, conveniently
have you looked at the source of the graph?
Why would you intentionally look at this complex situation in 1 dimension. That dimension being the most overplayed talked about dimension because it creates conflict between groups based on identities. Instead of looking at the actual problem that the dimension completely ignores.
Year on year difference?
I hate simple 1 dimensional representations of politics. I'm not a conservative, and as a Mutualist, I also am not a Liberal.
That's cool. I'm also a Mutant.
Fuck them for calling the left liberal. Liberals are the people who sell schools, hospitals, and social services to the lowest bidding private enterprise. A solidly right wing ideology that puts profit over people.
there are 2 types of liberal: economical and social
Some people intentionally mix these two up as part of balley and motte argument. Some people mix them up intentionally because they don't know any better.
Neo-liberals, actually. Winston Churchill wasn't doing any of that shit. Classical liberalism is fairly centrist, economically. Some things private, some things public.
This is only going to increase as men watch their quality of life continue to degrade, while they get ignored at best and blamed for everything at worse. Many men can barely afford to live, let alone even think of the joys of previous generations such as home ownership, having a family, or travelling.
Meanwhile the news is full of victory after victory for women, so of course they’re going to support the status quo more.
Conservatism grows when people are struggling.
Many men can barely afford to live, let alone even think of the joys of previous generations such as home ownership, having a family, or travelling.
Ahh yes, because houses are cheaper for women, obviously. /s
This has nothing to do with the person being a man or woman.
Meanwhile the news is full of victory after victory for women, so of course they’re going to support the status quo more.
That "victory after victory" is in large part just women catching up to existing men's rights.
When you’re privileged, equality looks like oppression.
Just today there was a story on the front page of a male domestic abuse survivor who tried to start up a shelter for men, who eventually killed himself because he got treated like shit for it.
Now compare that to resources allocated for women victims of domestic abuse.
1 in 4 women are victims of it, while 1 in 6 men are so its not like its not a huge issue for us either. We went from a society that didnt treat abuse as an issue for anyone to one that has, yet having nothing to support us is “catching up” in your books?
Victory for women? Like how they are losing their reproductive rights and going to jail for miscarriages in America?
Many men can barely afford to live, let alone even think of the joys of previous generations such as home ownership, having a family, or travelling.
this is true
Conservatism grows when people are struggling.
also true
Meanwhile the news is full of victory after victory for women, so of course they’re going to support the status quo more.
I don't get this argument. "Supporting the status quo" is literally what conservatism is about, no?
“Supporting the status quo” is literally what conservatism is about, no?
Not when it attempts to violently overthrow the government, no. Liberal=change and Conservative=preserve status quo is outdated and no longer true in most cases/places. e.g. some say that Brexit was quite a "change" for the UK? But in any case it was most definitely not preserving the present status quo.
Mostly conservatism tries to recreate things from ~30 years ago as a nostalgic and optimistic hope that returning to the past will help overcome the current badness, e.g. as a method of combating inflation.
Except on top of it all is the difference between what is said vs. done, e.g. to return to the past economic success in the USA we'd have to increase the top marginal tax rate to 90%, but instead conservatives lowered taxes on the wealthy still further. "Conservatism" is often only the line that the
car salesmenpoliticians sell, same as "Liberalism", for someone to get themselves into power.I view conservatism more as trying to relive the past. A rose tinted one, that seems appealing to people unhappy with today.
Leftism is not the status quo in the slightest. Men currently are far more privledged than women.
Liberal is not leftist.
Correct.
I don't think this is new. The right has always been more masculine and the left more feminine. That's why we need a bit of both.
I'm not trying to be mean, but this might be the single dumbest comment I've ever seen.
Have you considered that women may lean more left because they are generally more oppressed under the conservative status quo? Women are progressive because they largely need to be.
No, we don't need a right wing at all. Balance is not a virtue in and of itself, that's like saying we need a balance of fascism and antifascism.
What a narrow-minded, moronic thing to say. If this is how you see the world, I pity you and desperately hope you have no influence or power which impacts anyone's life in the real world.
"Arbitrary social constructs that have previously existed have previously existed, which is why we should carry them forward."
Most of the reason people think this is because they don't know history and the periods and cultures where women were badasses prior to patriarchal rewriting of history.
Cultures like the Minoans where women were paid equal to men for the same work, could divorce on their own, and seemingly felt safe from sexual violence given they walked around in outfits that accentuated their exposed breasts. A culture that had indoor plumbing over a thousand years before the Romans.
People like Nefertiti, the only woman in the history of Egypt depicted in the smiting pose who upended the entire religion and lines of succession such that there's a pharaoh who follows with the only apparent qualification being that he's married to her firstborn daughter. Had she been successful with the proposed second marriage to the Hittites it would have led to the largest kingdom in the region's history - and without a single battle.
Or Paduhepa, the "great lady" of the Hittites in the time of Ramses II who was not only conducting diplomatic relations with other countries but was co-signing treaties with her husband.
Or Deborah (meaning 'bee'), the prophetess and leader of the Israelites early on. Tracing back to a period when the archeology of an apiary in Tel Rehov indicates there was potentially awareness that the hive was ruled by a queen.
Most people, men included, have a false picture of history as one in which men built great empires that spanned the world. But this ignores survivorship bias and the great filter on our history by patriarchal revision of earlier norms. We only know of all of the above because of relatively recent archeology. Nefertiti was stricken from kept Egyptian history. Deborah precedes Asa deposing his grandmother the "Great Lady" and Josiah's banning of goddess worship. We're only left with the scraps and poorly covered up remnants of greatness for women, while male accomplishments are hyped up or literally stolen - such as Amenhotep II taking credit for an earlier female Pharoh's accomplishments and he and his father trying to erase her from history.
So we're operating from what's effectively misogynistic propaganda treated as a blueprint carried forward and reinforced in the historical record. It's not "how it's always been" at all. It's just how it's been recorded as having been by one side.
I originally wasn't going to respond to this post, but there's so much revisionism, omissions, and outright inaccuracies here that I ultimately couldn't ignore it, and that's just when it comes to the Minoans and Hittites, which I'm most familiar with. As such, I assume your comments about the others are equally one-sided in order to serve the really odd, unnecessary narrative you have going on here.
First off, we know very little about the Minoans, since, y'know, Linear A hasn't been deciphered yet, but from what we do know, they had an incredibly gender-segregated society, far more than we have today. In lists of family members, for example, the men and the women are in completely separate lists, which would be pretty weird for a place that didn't have "arbitrary social constructs" like gender roles, and women seem to have been forbidden from most traditionally male jobs in their society.
Their art emphasized sexual dimorphism, and for you to assume that nakedness of the breasts in clothing trends implies the same thing for them that it would in our society today just adds to the evidence that you have no idea what you're talking about.
They did have indoor plumbing, so at least you're right about that.
For the Hittites it's even worse, since their code of laws enforced separate punishments for crimes against men and women, with crimes against men carrying much more stringent penalties than crimes against women. Also, Hittite men wielded a large amount of legal power over their wives, which is indicated in their marriage ritual, where the man would "take" his wife so he could "possess" her afterward. Yes, it's better than the ancient Greeks a thousand years later, but by how much is debatable.
Further, tawananna (queens) only ruled when their kings were away, or after they had died until the next king was chosen, and not a single queen is listed in Hittite histories as a legitimate successor to the dynasty at any point. Their role in court was mostly religious, and while they did conduct diplomatic relations with other countries, to act like Hittite queens were on par with Hittite kings in any way is completely false.
So we’re operating from what’s effectively misogynistic propaganda treated as a blueprint carried forward and reinforced in the historical record. It’s not “how it’s always been” at all. It’s just how it’s been recorded as having been by one side.
While there are definitely plenty of excellent examples of strong female leaders throughout history, and their achievements should certainly be celebrated, the ridiculous Bronze Age revisionism you've written here sounds much more like propaganda than what's actually attested in the "historical record".
