• Lemister [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    17 days ago

    Yes women became a threat to early capitalism due to their strong unsupervised role as healers, herbalists, midwives and various other position of communal authority.

    • Z_Poster365 [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      17 days ago

      yep. Capitalist industrialization required mass proletarianization and urbanization. People who had been attached to the land had to be uprooted, moved to cities, and made to work far more hours than they ever had before.

      Men were forced into the heavy industry factories and mines, while women were forced into textile factories and into exclusively raising children. Before this, each peasant family determined their own division of labor on their farm as they saw fit. The land lord didn’t care as long as the taxes were paid.

      Whereas the factory floor and modern gender norms lead to a dictatorship of steam that was much crueler, and required a much stronger grip on the day-to-day lives and identities of its workers

      • Keld [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        17 days ago

        Urbanisation in the late middle ages and early modern period was in part a voluntary thing in much of Europe, as a form of resistance by the lower classes to serfdom and manoralism. That’s why we see so many laws in parts of the world where the feudal contracts were the strongest about the exact requirements to become a city dweller, and why we saw attempts by aristocrats in the late middle ages and early modern period to limit urbanisation by force. You’re conflating time periods again.

        • Z_Poster365 [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          17 days ago

          Not true at all. It was done by force in most cases, with the commons being fenced off and privatized by violent force and serfs evicted from the land via wars (after which they were never given their land back). In almost all historical cases Proletarianization was done via economic, legal or violent coercion.

          • Keld [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            17 days ago

            No. Because you’re conflating time periods, countries and projecting stuff backwards. Enclosure riots began in the 16th century in England, but prior to that in the holy roman empire you had laws limiting urbanisation and laws for when a peasant could be collected by his landlord even if he had attempted to move into the city. Even as late as the 18th century you had laws in parts of Europe like the Stavnesbånd which outright banned serfs from moving to the city.