Throughout most of history, death in childbirth or shortly afterwards was incredibly common...

>Throughout most of history, death in childbirth or shortly afterwards was incredibly common, and historical mixed gender gravesites almost always include a younger average for the female skeletons than they do for the male skeletons.
>Current day, we have a reasonably large industry devoted to feminist history and trying to explain why in the overwhelming majority of societies, men are the ones wielding almost all of the power, not women.
>Endemic death in childbirth and the large associated social effects that stem from it are very rarely mentioned in said feminist historical narratives.

Why? Seriously, why? It's probably the single biggest factor, even more so than disparities in upper body strength. And I have to sift with a fine toothed comb to find them. Are they just all idiots?

Feminist boogie man. never heard of it.
Whats your point tho. that feminist bs is boring go back to pol with it.

>It's probably the single biggest factor
Factor in what?

My point is that a school of historiography seems unable to identify the single largest factor in the field they're focusing on. That's a bit weird, don't you think?

Factor in, and I will egotistically quote myself

>trying to explain why in the overwhelming majority of societies, men are the ones wielding almost all of the power, not women

I really don't see how those two things are connected.

>Women are physically weaker than men
Whoah, who knew?

You don't think that having a very large portion of your population dying young on a very regular basis is going to impact things? And that such deaths will not be avoidable from social re-engineering, since you know, you kind of need to keep turning out babies. So wherever you go, you're going to have many, if not most women dying in their 20s-30s, assuming they survived childhood in the first place. And you don't think that's connected to why women generally didn't accumulate political capital?

Why men hold power in Societies?
hmmmm tough question.
Put two in a fight, an angry man vs women , who would win.

Which is of course why societies are perennially dominated by the biggest, best fighters. Wait? They're not? HOLY SHIT, you might need to rethink that theory.

>many, if not most
you're reaching, but your point stands.

Yes, women need to have children for societies to survive. If some women die in childbirth, others have to fill the gap. You can see how this might eat up their time.

I am not reaching. Look up Hainswalt's research on Renaissance women. At least for urban women, death in the month immediately after childbirth tended to average about 1 in 5. That's per pregnancy, not per woman. (Although, I would note that rural women had far better chances, most death seemed to be from post-birth infections, not direct death during child delivery; lower density of population and less of a chance for disease transfer helped that enormously.) With fertility rates being high, that was a very large chance of death before menopause from a childbirth related incident.

> If some women die in childbirth, others have to fill the gap.
And when you don't have enough "other" women to fill the gap? Why do you think that you have long periods where demography stays the same, hell, even declines in absence of large scale wars or endemic diseases? And don't you think this affects how societies view people, and allocate their resources? Why bother educating your daughter? She's probably going to die anyway before she can use it, and it's not like knowing mathematics is going to help her squirt out more babies. Things like opportunities to build networks over years to decades simply don't exist if you're likely to die young, far younger than your male counterparts.

And remember, my question isn't that it happened, or that it had enormous social impact. Clearly it did to both. I'm wondering why academics who study into the phenomenon of gender power relations throughout history tend to ignore the fact.

Societies are ruled by the strongest individuals able to win biggest fights using not matter what. like armies,and other fighters and police...etc
this is kid level thought.

>Societies are ruled by the strongest individuals able to win biggest fights using not matter what
No they aren't.

>like armies,and other fighters and police...etc
Control of military forces, even when said control forms the basis of society (It often doesn't, think any modern liberal democracy, or any ancient theocracy, or any polity which didn't have standing forces) does not require one to be a fighter oneself. There's a reason why administrators, not prizefighters, tend to gravitate to power in modern bureaucratic states.

Because it would detract from their drivel about 'muh patriarchy' and 'muh opwession'

Why send your girl to study when she is already married and yougot no control ocer her all you except from her is a visit in the weekends. women were demanded for marriage at 13-18 .
>dad thinks of his daughter as a quirting babies pet
DISGUSTING. PSUDO

People who control those things arent fighters, never said that. are the ones who control lands and societies.
If there is some one who can control those who think they control armies and police and law then trully they are the strongest.

>People who control those things arent fighters, never said that.
Yes you did.
>Societies are ruled by the strongest INDIVIDUALS able to win biggest fights

>Put two in a fight, an angry man vs women , who would win.

As an argument as to why women couldn't historically hold power.

>If there is some one who can control those who think they control armies and police and law then trully they are the strongest.

Then how does that follow from the initial objection?

> What is Western European marriage pattern

Youre right OP but that doesnt detract at all from feminist accounts of history. The idea isnt that men dominate women because men are inherently bad, it's that huge differences in physiology encouraged the creation of the categories men and women and one category was the one crippled by being baby factories that couldnt defend themselves as well against being raped.

This is what smart feminists believe and it's not even that different than from what reactionary /r9k/ers believe, but the former reach the conclusion that maybe just because something is natural it's not inevitable or desirable and women should not be tied forever to the accident of birth that is their reproductive system. The latter reaches the conclusion that "natural = good" and don't have to justify that because 1. They spend time in echochambers of bitter incels 2. Evolutionary psychology justifies itself very easily even without any evidence

>huge differences in physiology encouraged the creation of the categories men and women
those categories exist because of huge differences in physiology. Sexual dimorphism and division of labor.

>the accident of birth that is their reproductive system
lol, come back when you can differentiate between life functions and accidents.

>those categories exist because of huge differences in physiology

Yes, thats what I said. They were created through necessity but nonetheless created because the human conception of sexual difference is not identical to the physical reality of it.

>lol, come back when you can differentiate between life functions and accidents.

U wat? "Life function" only means anything in relation to an end it's functioning for. In civilized society that end is or should be human flourishing. Spending your life in a cycle of crippling pregnancy and childbirth is not conducive to human flourishing and there's no reason women's role in society should be restricted by what was biologically expediant for the homo sapien animal. Sure you can worship biological functions if you want but you'll just be cynically treating human organs as totems so you dont have to face the reality of indeterminate purpose.

>"Life function" only means anything in relation to an end it's functioning for.
Respiration, reproduction, synthesis, circulation. These have little to do with civilized society outside of the organisms that create it.

>there's no reason women's role in society should be restricted by what was biologically expediant for the homo sapien animal
women and men are as animal as the other great apes, and as animal as their domesticated stock.

Do you not see how you referring to biology as such a self-evident end is reductive and ideological?

>reductive
you deny the very bodies of the people whose well being you claim to uphold, and thus have divorced yourself from reality. What do you think it means for organisms to flourish? Do you seriously mean to imply biology isn't the first driver of human behavior?

Your twisted idealism has no academic legs, and quite frankly I believe it to be unhealthy.

Many feminists literally believe that history began in the 1960s, so it isn't surprising they ignore ancient medical realities.

They're controlled by people who are aggressive, dominant and competitive.
Guess who those people are.