China’s gonna be a phenomenal world leader.

  • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year 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
      ·
      1 year 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