You make excellent points. I would add that, prior to "no fault" divorce, when marriage was for life, a husband and wife had a lot of incentive to act as a unit in their own individual interests, and the interests of their family. Also, prior to the industrial revolution, married couples were also co-operating economic units such as businesses, farms, or estates. Both spouses had to be familiar with the other's usual tasks to be able to carry on in the face of death, illness or other disruptions. I'd also note that, in American history, I think the average guy had less power than the average gal, because of sentimentality about women being the weaker, more feeling sex. As evidence, I offer this interesting tidbit. When department stores first appeared, so did a form of theft commonly known as shoplifting. Police quickly found that it was women and girls, often pampered, engaging in this theft. Psychiatry came to the rescue, inventing the mental illness of "kleptomania" to explain how these innocent females were tormented by impulses they were took weak to resist.
The queens and aristocratic women of Europe certainly disprove the claim that a world run by women would be a more peaceful place (as do many American inner cities of today, which are functionally matriarchies). Even before I was aware of this history, I always believed that a world run by women would be one in which armistice or cease fire would not be a thing, because of women's capacity for grudge holding.
Feminist icon Cleopatra, like so many other feminist icons (Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Meghan Markle) seems to have been completely happy to use her male partner's status to get advantages for herself. I suspect Cleopatra was probably the smartest of the above listed ladies.
And probably more ruthless. I was particularly amused by a "herstory" type trying to find excuses for Cleopatra 7th having her half sister Arsinoe 4th executed. Though of course not bothered that she had her young brother Ptolemy assassinated. The medieval French court had similarly entangled periods with prominent royal and aristocratic women. Catherine de Medici, Ann of Austria coming immediately to mind. And the Byzantines seemed to continue the tangled traditions of Ptolemaic Egypt. While in England the prolonged war between the Empress Matilda and her cousin Stephen for the throne was so devastating neither name was used again as a royal name. "Sugar and spice and all things nice"??
Cleopatra was ruthless, no doubt. (quick aside - have you see Pat Brown's work demolishing the suicide myth? If not, I highly recommend either the book or the videos on You Tube - fabulous!)
I notice feminists often ignore a couple of things about other feminists (or pre-feminist women they hold up as icons). One is when women feminists ride the coattails of husbands, especially when they don't have to. I'm thinking of Hillary and Michelle. Both earned law degrees and could easily have acted as examples of female independence by working outside the White House. But no, they embraced the title of First Lady (Michelle even tried to get herself a separate salary - on top of all the perks of being part of the President's family and his salary). Meghan Markle is another example (when she talks about "giving up my career" playing the "hot" girl roles - age late 30s, I have to laugh). I predict that, even after divorce, she will cling to that courtesy title like grim death.
The second thing feminists ignore in feminist icons is treating other women badly - MM is again famous for staff (if not all, then almost all female) fleeing in droves.
Of course, targeting women who don't align with feminism is not a problem. Perhaps Cleopatra's feminist fans could find excuses to paint Arsinoe 4th as some kind of traitorous trad wife. That would prevent any pesky cognitive dissonance.
You make excellent points. I would add that, prior to "no fault" divorce, when marriage was for life, a husband and wife had a lot of incentive to act as a unit in their own individual interests, and the interests of their family. Also, prior to the industrial revolution, married couples were also co-operating economic units such as businesses, farms, or estates. Both spouses had to be familiar with the other's usual tasks to be able to carry on in the face of death, illness or other disruptions. I'd also note that, in American history, I think the average guy had less power than the average gal, because of sentimentality about women being the weaker, more feeling sex. As evidence, I offer this interesting tidbit. When department stores first appeared, so did a form of theft commonly known as shoplifting. Police quickly found that it was women and girls, often pampered, engaging in this theft. Psychiatry came to the rescue, inventing the mental illness of "kleptomania" to explain how these innocent females were tormented by impulses they were took weak to resist.
The queens and aristocratic women of Europe certainly disprove the claim that a world run by women would be a more peaceful place (as do many American inner cities of today, which are functionally matriarchies). Even before I was aware of this history, I always believed that a world run by women would be one in which armistice or cease fire would not be a thing, because of women's capacity for grudge holding.
Feminist icon Cleopatra, like so many other feminist icons (Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Meghan Markle) seems to have been completely happy to use her male partner's status to get advantages for herself. I suspect Cleopatra was probably the smartest of the above listed ladies.
And probably more ruthless. I was particularly amused by a "herstory" type trying to find excuses for Cleopatra 7th having her half sister Arsinoe 4th executed. Though of course not bothered that she had her young brother Ptolemy assassinated. The medieval French court had similarly entangled periods with prominent royal and aristocratic women. Catherine de Medici, Ann of Austria coming immediately to mind. And the Byzantines seemed to continue the tangled traditions of Ptolemaic Egypt. While in England the prolonged war between the Empress Matilda and her cousin Stephen for the throne was so devastating neither name was used again as a royal name. "Sugar and spice and all things nice"??
Cleopatra was ruthless, no doubt. (quick aside - have you see Pat Brown's work demolishing the suicide myth? If not, I highly recommend either the book or the videos on You Tube - fabulous!)
I notice feminists often ignore a couple of things about other feminists (or pre-feminist women they hold up as icons). One is when women feminists ride the coattails of husbands, especially when they don't have to. I'm thinking of Hillary and Michelle. Both earned law degrees and could easily have acted as examples of female independence by working outside the White House. But no, they embraced the title of First Lady (Michelle even tried to get herself a separate salary - on top of all the perks of being part of the President's family and his salary). Meghan Markle is another example (when she talks about "giving up my career" playing the "hot" girl roles - age late 30s, I have to laugh). I predict that, even after divorce, she will cling to that courtesy title like grim death.
The second thing feminists ignore in feminist icons is treating other women badly - MM is again famous for staff (if not all, then almost all female) fleeing in droves.
Of course, targeting women who don't align with feminism is not a problem. Perhaps Cleopatra's feminist fans could find excuses to paint Arsinoe 4th as some kind of traitorous trad wife. That would prevent any pesky cognitive dissonance.