Poirot raises a good point. Modern conceptions of ‘history’ are a heavily sanitised version of what, prior to the 20th century rise of academe, would have been ‘myth’. There may or may not be a valid ‘historical basis’ for elements of Homer’s Iliad, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Bhagavad Gita and the Bible, but these and related oral histories functioned as a repository of moral do’s and dont’s, not facts. Nobody wanted what today’s uni profs produce: say, a warts-and-all description of what wood Noah used to build the Ark, how much it cost, and the actual Aramaic text of his speech to the crew on the day the boat finally settled on Mt Ararat. These stories were told by elders to their children, who passed the on to their children. Myths are subject to evolution, and the damaging, outmoded or useless ones are ruthlessly culled. Those which survive impart information so useful to those who possess it that the recipients out-breed and out-survive cultures with a less well-adapted set myths. For millennia, no one gave a toss if their history was ‘true’; the only reason to preserve it was as a repository of useful lessons teaching the uninitiated about the benefits of virtue, and the penalties of vice.

Today, academics and teachers sneer at myth. We have ‘history’ instead, but historical fact is at best only TRUE; without a present-day ethical context, such fact unlikely to be USEFUL. Historians earn praise for discovering blemishes in those once held up as heroes, or virtues in those denounced as a bad example, never the other way around. They love nothing better than demolishing a myth. Those Mekong fishermen no doubt have (or had) innumerable myths to tell their children about what’s good behaviour, whats bad, and what the consequences might be in either case. Historians hate that. Hence, in Australia, we’ve given up on history, won’t countenance myth for ethical education on the grounds it’s tainted by religion, and end up preaching ‘values’ like ‘Do unto others ...’ without mentioning the mythic source of those words.

Yep history was written by the wealthy and powerful who were all men.

LOL things are improving as there is more diversity and acknowledgement of the 'other' - other ways of thinking and being and other ways of being progressive and successful.

The western white man is no longer the default human being. So sorry if some of you old farts can't cope. This old woman remembers what it was like when you blokes made the rules. I can empathise with your distress and anger at now being irrelevant and just plain wrong, But, it would be better for your health, emotional and physical, if you just got over it, stopped whinging and looked for the benefits.

Developing the contraceptive pill was your big mistake and theres no going back now.

Molydukes,
There have been many societies over time, but there isn't much known about feminist societies.

Most likely because they died out so quickly.

Something feminists and indeed historians could ponder about.

Also, your use of terms such as "old fart" does nothing to lift feminism up above its current level.

Vanna You are right about the old fart thing. I was being patronising to men who are doing it tough in this modern world, and I 'should' be more sensitive. It's what women are sposed to be eh? Sensitive and caring? And if I'm not, then I must be a feminist?

Not actually sure what a feminist is these days. I did know back in the 70's but things have changed you know. Although, now that I think about it, there are still 70's feminists lurking in Arts faculties.

I was actually asked to leave a course run by an unreconstructed '70's feminist in the Visual Arts faculty where I was doing a Fine Arts degree back in the late 90's. She was spouting nonsense about postmodernism which she knew so little about, that she thought it was 'the truth'.

But I'm not talking about feminist societies, or even matriachial societies. I'm thinking that what can develop from the freedom that birth control provides to women, is an entirely new society that includes men and women as partners rather than dominant male and subservient female.

This is one male who is supportive of the same project mollydukes. The patriarchy wasn't kind to most men either in my experience.

Mollydukes,
That would introduce the question “What dominates society?”

Economics? Perhaps.

Religion? Perhaps.

Desire to survive more likely, and I once read that in a natural state, women in a tribe had to be pregnant about 20 times throughout their often short life to get enough children to continue the tribe, (accounting for miscarriage, child mortality rates and death of women during child birth).

Now, there are too many people, due mostly to the efforts of men in reducing miscarriage, child mortality and death of women during child birth.

That is the past, but currently women are not inventing much except copying men.