pawq wrote:For one, women often had little to say about who they were wed to, and I know that from my own family a few generations back.
(Richer) children had often a little to say about who their parents decided them to marry.
pawq wrote:
I think I don't even have to mention education, or the lack of access to education for women until not so long ago, which obviously and naturally prevented them from gaining significant importance.
The limiting factor 100 years ago was money, so parent could send only one or a few children to school, and they typically chose boys. There wasn't any discrimination on the school side.
pawq wrote:"Property" is naturally a bit of a stretch, but there is a lot of truth in that.
Women were not equal 100 years ago, but property is a bit stretch.
Anyway, the "equality" in the test is not the equality of opportunities, which almost everybody supports, but it is about the equality of outcome (equity). That's what I am against.
In all the fields, were women underperform, there are steps taken, to make their outcome equal. But when the sexes are switched, nobody gives a shit.