>I just don't know about the rest. Before it could make any difference
>what men thought they had to become dominant. So you can't make their
>druthers the explanation for their druthers making a difference.
>
>Carrol
yes, which is what i wrote in my critique of radical feminism at the time. but just to play devils. if i'm getting it right, the idea was that there was class society first and along with it the notion of passing along property via inheritance. if inheritance is determined matrilinealy and there is an assumption that women are parthenogenic, then no big deal. however, once the domestication of animals yields a recognition of the role played by males, then _who_ the father is matters and so sexuality needs to be controlled. otherwise, she could be getting it on with all kinds of dudes and the bloodline would be defiled! :) not to mention that those who inherit the wealth could then start handing it out to their father's family, liquidating the wealth.
so, the desire to maintain control of wealth in the hands of a few families leads to the control of women's sexuality leads to the domination of women and all the attendant ideologies that come with it, not maintenance of wealth, desire for male domination then the control of women.
but again, this is based on a very hazy memory of this whole argument and i'm guessing it's been shot full of holes by now.