I wonder if forum members can work out why Male Inheritance and succession through history has been important to many cultures?
In Europe the Salic laws were created to enforce this tradition but why would they do this?

Interesting question! I guess what it all boils down to is the fact that throughout history women have been regarded as second-class citizens - "weaker vessels", if you like. Female rulers were until recently regarded with suspicion. Here in England we even had a civil war over it in the 12th century - Henry I had proclaimed his daughter Matilda as his heir, but most of the nobles didn't like that so imported her cousin, Stephen of Blois, to take over the throne instead.

Unforunately, religion has been used to keep women down (even though, IMHO, for example, in true Christianity men & women are to be regarded as equals) - females have been regarded as not to be trusted ever since Eve "tempted" Adam with the apple (conveniently forgetting that he didn't have to eat it! ).

Mandy

I agree with much of what mandy wrote.

I imagine that as women are the child bearers men took it upon themselves to do the more 'dangerous' activities which led in time to the idea that women were the 'property' of men - inferior to men and incapable of doing the same jobs as men. Religion codified this and led to the complete subjugation of women in many cultures.

As the property of men, women were given much the same status as land, gold and other goods - and as such could not 'own' anything in her own right - though there are throughout history notable exceptions. Historically it has been important to men that offspring are their own in order to continue 'bloodlines' - sons being more important then daughters. Sons could go on to do more then just become the next generation of incubators.

Yes, indeed thoreau! I'm thinking of Henry VIII beheading and divorcing several wives in order to get that all-important elusive male heir!

History has indeed thrown up some fascinating exceptions to the general rule, though, as you say. I remember studying the Spartans of Greece at school - as the bearers of the next generation of warriors, women there were treated with much more respect than other women in Greece. They were well-educated and ecouraged to exercise, and child-bearing was discouraged until the girl was at least 18 years of age to give her time to develop properly.

Mandy

Ironic really that henry VIII's need for a son changed the religious face of england so dramatically - and that despite his greatest efforts england was ruled over for the next almost 50 odd years by queens. One of whom went mental in her quest to have a child and one whom resolutely refused to give up her power to a man. The latter bringing stability to the country. - the 1500's saw a lot of powerful women in royal circles - wealthy in their own right and acting as regents.

One of my favourite female historical figures is Eleanor of Aquitaine - another women who was wealthy and powerful in her own right.

I have been reading with interest the developments in regards to the vote on consecrated women bishops - It seems such a weird thing for a vote to be needed on - also the recent stories in the news about a woman being shot at point blank range by members of the taliban in order for the men to 'save face' - it reminds me that we are still very far away from having gender equality - which makes me a sad bunny

thoreau wrote:
Took the words out of my mouth thoreau, spot on

I actually feel quite sorry for men most of them are lovely and treat women as equals - as equality between the sexes has progressed it is men that have had to do the majority of the changing - and can't seem to win - but at least we do seem to be progressing