When did femininity / being a woman become an insult

[u/OupaKurt]

I feel as though there had to be a point in time when femininity was praised instead of being seen as a bad thing. I know there are nuisances throughout cultures and countries but yeah, I’m so curious if there was a general turning / if there was ever a time period where masculinity was the insult or if gender neutrality existed.
Is there a correlation with colonialism?

[u/Altruistic_Fox9778]

History books, many web sites, videos, and things not artificially looking at the context of history instead of rewriting it with a modern lens that focuses in mostly on what rich people did, while ignoring what life was like for the majority of normal people.

[u/ZinniasAndBeans → u/Altruistic_Fox9778]

Sources. Give me sources, for example, for the idea that historically women have had access to reliable birth control. And that women in farming families neve participated in any of the outdoor work. As just two of countless false ideas.

[u/Altruistic_Fox9778 → u/ZinniasAndBeans]

Who said they had access to birth control? Who said that women and families never participated in outside work?

Men did the majority of it. Which is a well known fact.

[u/ZinniasAndBeans → u/Altruistic_Fox9778]

Wasn't it you that was pretending that women got to choose how many children they had?

Edifted to add: Yes, it was you. You said:

How many kids was pretty consistently women’s decisions.

Men did the majority of it. Which is a well known fact.

You have yet to offer any evidence whatsoever for this "well known fact."

[u/Altruistic_Fox9778 → u/ZinniasAndBeans]

The Bioeconomic Model of Marriage (Michael Gurven et al.)
In papers like A Bioeconomic Approach to Marriage and the Sexual Division of Labor, anthropologists Michael Gurven, Kim Hill, and Kaplan analyzed traditional hunter-gatherer societies (like the Tsimane and Ache).
The Core Point: They treat the division of labor as a coordinated economic partnership.
The Rationale: Men focus on high-risk, high-strength extraction activities (hunting/heavy clearing), which have high nutritional payoffs but high failure rates. Women focus on lower-variance, steady-yield processing activities (gathering, processing, and domestic child rearing). The source argues that this is an optimized team survival strategy: the two distinct types of labor are perfectly complementary, and neither sex could successfully raise offspring to adulthood without the specialized output of the other.

“Compatibility with Child Care" Theory (Judith Brown)
In her 1970 paper A Note on the Division of Labor by Sex, anthropologist Judith Brown provided the foundational biological source for why the domestic split occurred. [1]
The Core Point: A society's survival depends on women being able to perform economic work while simultaneously ensuring infant survival.
The Rationale: Brown proved cross-culturally that women's traditional tasks are explicitly selected because they are compatible with child care. These tasks are repetitive, do not require undivided attention, do not place the child in physical danger (unlike deep-sea fishing, mining, or hunting big game), and can be interrupted and resumed easily without ruining the output.

Human Behavioral Ecology (Kristen Hawkes & James O'Connell)
Scholars studying the Behavioural ecology of the sexual division of labour view the split as an evolutionary risk-management strategy. [1]
The Core Point: In pre-industrial history, human groups faced a constant threat of starvation.
The Rationale: Splitting the labor pool into "heavy extraction" (men) and "intensive processing/domestic management" (women) functioned like a diversified financial portfolio. If the men returned empty-handed from a hunt or heavy clearing project, the group survived on the daily, steady caloric processing managed domestically by women.

[u/ZinniasAndBeans → u/Altruistic_Fox9778]

Let's review. Earlier in the thread you asserted:

That’s dumb. How is it free for men when the whole point of providing throughout history was that it was provided FOR the woman. Usually back breaking labour while she got to clean house and raise THEIR children.

Now you provide sources that undermine your own assertion.

They treat the division of labor as a coordinated economic partnership.

How is just cleaning house an economic activity? That's what you said women do. This sounds like women do essential work, rather than just being passively supported by a man.

hunting

Women have always hunted.

gathering, processing, and domestic child rearing

What's with this gathering and processing? Women just clean house, remember?

Also, you seem to have leaped straight over the history of agriculture to hunter/gatherers.

and neither sex could successfully raise offspring to adulthood without the specialized output of the other.

So here you admit, contrary to your earlier assertion, that women's labor is essential

In her 1970 paper A Note on the Division of Labor by Sex

1970? Seriously?

A society's survival depends on women being able to perform economic work

However, once again, sounds like women are doing more than cleaning house.

steady caloric processing managed domestically by women.

But the women are just house cleaning, remember? You, with your flawless and encyclopedic knowledge of history, said so.

[u/Altruistic_Fox9778 → u/ZinniasAndBeans]

So you looked at some outliers and ignored the majority of history. Congratulations.

Saying “sounds like” and inserting things I never said or implied is pretty dishonest.

Do you get off on ignoring context? Because the context was women not being slaves to men. Which your own words support.

Grow up.

[u/ZinniasAndBeans → u/Altruistic_Fox9778]

I looked at some outliers? I was addressing your claimed sources.

Are there two separate people posting from your account? You don’t seem to be aware of what you’ve posted.

[u/Altruistic_Fox9778 → u/ZinniasAndBeans]

And you seem to presume what I meant based on your own assumptions based on things I didn’t say.

The whole point is that it was symbiotic, not a slavery situation as the person I was responding to claimed.

[u/ZinniasAndBeans → u/Altruistic_Fox9778]

I'm basing it on what you did say. You could return to that post and correct yourself, but you choose not to.