Is discrediting female contribution to society throughout history just great man bullshit?

>I could say that women made up a massive portion of all populations and thus contributed massive amounts of labour, but most people write that of as unimportant.
Slaves made up the majority of the roman empire and contributed most of the work. But somehow their impact on history was a bit disproportional.
Same goes for women. There simply wasn't that many female inventors, generals, leaders etc.
Patriarchy is a bitch, deal with it.

>Slaves made up the majority of the roman empire and contributed most of the work. But somehow their impact on history was a bit disproportional.
Slaves are an extremely important element of Roman history, and overlooking them purely for the big figures would be bad history.

They are not overlooked, they just had no real impact on history itself.
Regarding women, there where some influential Queens and also intellectuals, but all in all their contribution to history itself was rather small. Not really surprising in a patriarchal world.

So you do basically agree with the great man theory?

No idea, I do not know said theory.

It's a theory that the prime movers of history are great men, individuals like powerful monarchs, generals, etc

Meh, it is partially true, but then there is more to it. You won't find a single great general in the Swiss history for example, non the less they kicked Europe around for 200 years.

Well some of the most famous women in history were just cum receptacles, or famous because of who they were married to. Cleopatra, Theodora, Gorgo..

It is not necessarily true, but then check the threads here, most anons are to stupid or uneducated to understand that the big man is not the driver of history. Instead they post threads about their favorite Generals, Dictators and statesmen. If you'd ask them to describe living conditions or culture in context they fall silent pretty fast.

The big man theory has some credit to it, removing those important figures from history would change it to the point it's indistinguishable. Of course they couldn't do the shit they did without the mass of people, the same way you can't paint or write without fingers. But people don't talk about the fingers that paint and write, they talk about paintings and books, that's just how it is.

>Is discrediting female contribution great man bullshit?
I see why this occurred to you but it remains irrelevant: remember, women were not important among Average Men ("inventor, etc" populations "as a whole") either, nevermind the Great Men.

Both sides of that debate are retarded since feminine cultivation was precisely apart from "inventors etc": the household, recreation. The traditional roles and arts of women may not have been directly related to "progress" but that does not invalidate them or make them any less essential to what was achieved.

This non-problem arises when you assume egalitarianism (this rose with the enlightenment) to be the end goal of humanity: then it becomes problematic that things were achieved through a hierarchical manner - that nobility thrived on a slavish base, that man thrived on the servility of woman. Very emotional stuff. But it is just that, emotion. It refuses to recognise that a beautiful perspective can be taken just as easily: the fruits of directing disciplined masses, or the amorous and maternal delicacies of the traditional feminine ideals.

You should pay attention to family breakdown statistics over the 20th century, and notice that last year half of the women in the culturally dominant state (USA) voted for a sexist leader.

So stop being a Milk-Eyed Mender, and just Have One On Her (the patrician woman tells you herself). Silly egalitarian.

there were scant women of individual historical significance, that's simply reality.

>image from tumblr
figures.