In our caWsbar XSpace last summer, I spoke about the great push in Canada in the 80s and 90s to bring more women into the theatre - more women playwrights, more directors… means more ROLES for WOMEN!
But Canadian theatres In the past decade, including Toronto’s Nightwood Theatre - Canada’s long-standing feminist theatre, now categorizes live-play-acting men as women, where they can now replace us once again.
And now this slap in the face.
Perhaps this was just what we need to bring you another production from Women’s Underground Theatre (WUT).
Like all discussioms of the precarious standing of Women's stories about Women, this one reminds me of the Bechdel test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test). But alas, Allison Bechdel herself has been a rabid TRA fully onboard with the idea that men can be women (probably even better women than Women could🙄)—and therefore that stories entirely by and about not just men, but men whose explicit goal is to erase and/or pervert our collective understanding of Women and Womanhood, can pass her test with flying colors—for double-digit years now.
Especially around erasure through policy drift rather than open debate.
What many people miss is that movements to expand opportunity only work when they actually protect the group they were built for. When definitions change without consent, transparency, or material safeguards, the outcome isn’t inclusion; it’s displacement.
Theatre has always been a place where power dynamics get rehearsed before they show up everywhere else. Naming that tension matters. Building something independent, intentional, and accountable; like what you’re hinting at; is often how balance gets restored when institutions stop listening.
Henry hadv6 wives but it wasn't a harem, he was married to one at a time. From.thpsw 6 he had 6 children, 3 of which didn't survive infancy. Of the 3 that did only 1 was a male who made it to the throne but dud at 15 bc he was sickly. Next was Mary who upon her death was replaced by Elizabeth 1 whom history considered ine of the greatest rulers of Britain.
So while he had 6 wives ( sequentially as he wasn't polygamous) In the end his desire for a male heir lead yo one of Britain's greatest rulers. Henry wanted a male heir badly due to resistance and fear of another queen ruling over Britain for the last queen ended up starting a Civil War, the Anarchy
I despise Dylan Mulvaney. Although I agree with everything you have said, but this casting is all about marketing. Dylan is living proof that there is no such thing as bad publicity. The producers no doubt believe this will shake things up and fill more seats. Unfortunately it’s Broadway and not Bud Lite…so I don’t think it will backfire, but sadly a man has usurped a role that should be featuring an actual woman.
It’s been a successful Broadway show and has even been touring successfully. I think that this is an attempt to breathe some life back into it as it nears the end of its run. Would like to see him kill it the way that casting Billy Porter ended the recent Cabaret revival.
Unfortunately the rabid straight female “allies” (the “fag hags” of yesteryear) absolutely lap up this Dylan mulvaney shit. It’s a brilliant marketing move but I’m so pissed too.
It might be near the end because it’s been running strong for 5 years now, most of the current cast is leaving and casting someone with no acting experience is the kind of stuntcasting that usually happens to gin up interest on the way out, but no. This play is the furthest thing from a flop in the world of musicals. It’s maybe the biggest musical since Hamilton.
To be clear…Dylan toured with Book of Mormon. He actually does have experience. I just don’t like him. (And I would have despised him even if he never played at being “trans” for attention. He is a long time attention whore…Google the video of his antics as a contestant on The Price Is Right or when he performed with The Skivies…total cringe.)
While I am familiar with the idea that there is no such thing as bad publicity however I'd say Hollywood has been learning over the last 10 years, after it decided to put the pro-Affirmative Action/DEI ideology into over drive that publicity has been very much bad for them. It took a few years to catch up with them but it's definitely been bad publicity. Hollywood does not appear to be suffering as badly as Bud Lite did because Hollywood is a much larger entity with a much broader market and appeal. Bud lite is more like a singular Hollywood IP that's been run into the ground by the toxic garbage. Hollywood can put out a lot of failed product and still survive, unlike Bud lite, because it can also put out non-woke infected content at the same time. This means Hollywood can go longer before being forced to course correct. While Hollywood puts out ideological crap like the recent Star Trek shows it also puts out the various Tyler Sheridan series which have done really well.. Hollywood is more like a diverse investment where as Bud Lite is more like a singular stock.
All that said, eventually any/all vendors who provide a product or service will be forced to pick between ideological messaging and content your customer base wants it just takes longer to make Hollywood feel the pain of its mistakes. Covid and Streaming Services have also provided Hollywood with an alternative excuse to provide shareholders and investors for why profits are down. Disney is a studio putting out ideological trash however it's also a cruise line, an amusement park and more. Those other lines of products/services have allowed the Disney Studio to more easily absorb the losses from its studio business. Had Paramount or Warner Bros acquired the Star Wars IP , Darth Kennedy would have been tossed out on her ass long ago because a studio that is just a studio would not have been able to afford the loses caused by her bad decisions.
Trans Boleyn…oh boy! What will they think of next …and why this travesty? Mulvaney is the king of fakes… I hate his fake smile…all lies with flashing teeth! Ugh!
I completely disagree with Dylan Mulvaney and the trans movement; women should not have their private spaces like locker rooms and even public spaces like sports, invaded by mentally broken men pretending to be women. That said, what they are doing highlights a long running hypocrisy of the feminist movement regarding single sex spaces.
In the 80s/90s the feminist movement was demanding access to male only spaces such as gyms and gentlemen’s clubs. I know b/c I was a young man at the time and witnessed this personally as I belonged to a gym with men only. Eventually the feminists won, gaining access to these spaces. At the time, there were female only spaces (i.e. gyms) and apparently it was OK that women had female only spaces, but men were allowed no such thing. Men were not seeking out and demanding access to traditionally female only spaces, but feminists were doing exactly that to male only spaces.
This is not something isolated. In the 2010’s a group of men in the UK created a men’s only club, the UK Men's Sheds Association, where the men would meet at a workshop like space to talk with each other, discussing things they rather not discuss with women not even their wives, while building things; while doing that which mean naturally enjoy doing. After a few years, women demanded access to this space. It was mainly the spouses of the men who were demanding access and eventually with enough pressure, the men gave in and the women got access to that space. Within a very short time the women ruined the space for the men by demanding changes that appealed to women which the men did not care for. Eventually this chased away the men due to the changes the women demanded as well as it no longer being a male only space, no longer being a safe space for mento talk openly and freely.
This is a very common story, where women demand access to traditionally male only spaces and upon gaining access, they then demand changes to accommodate female preferences (and I don't mean adding a women's bathroom) and in doing so, they so change the space that many if not all of the men leave the space. I am %100 for female only spaces and yet for some reason it’s a problem for men to have their own spaces. I’m not saying you are like this, only that many feminist women are and it’s very hypocritical.
There's a very good reason men want gyms for men only. Today women are driving men out of gyms with their video taping of their workout for social media, and thru claims of harassment of the men who are doing nothing more than what they normally do. Anytime an attractive women puts on skin tight clothing that reveals a lot, most men are going to take a glance at the woman; it's only natural. Today these women who video tape their work-out for social media (and sometimes things like OnlyFans) when men either simply get close or take a glance at her, the woman then tries to shame the man in their video. As a man, when things like this are allowed to happen it makes men not want to support the efforts to get transwomen out of women’s spaces.
For whatever reason some women can’t tolerate men having a male only space and so they end up demanding access to that space and once in it they so change the space that the men no longer want to be there. How is that not hypocrisy?
Ah-HAH so You're not just ••randomly•• such a compelling speaker. Gotcha! 🤗
Imagine the humiliation of being one of the five (presumably) actual Women cast alongside Mr. Mulvaney—and billed below him, of course. It seems almost worse than if they'd gone full Athenian/Shakespearean mode and just cast men to play all six "wives".
.
Not sure if this is meant to be assumed knowledge here, but, Mr. Mulvaney too had a first career in the theater—off-Broadway in fact. So this would be like returning to his roots, if it weren't for the wrong-sex casting (... where we just KNOW there won't be any camp/slapstick-style laughs built into the role in a token effort to make it minimally palatable to normal people, since that'd obviously be twanz jennasyde).
The worst part is, Mr. Mulvaney is actually a decent singer as the tenor that he is in real life—but i'm sure he's been written a contralto part ostensibly designed to be sung by an actual Woman, which will inevitably have disastrous results. (This was tried in a "music" video posted on YT a couple years ago—where those quote marks should be read as the world's biggest finger quotes—and Mr. Mulvaney is, let's just say, not exactly Chris Cornell when it comes to singing in his head voice.)
On the historical reduction of Women to little more than just the wives and/or helpmeets of famous men:
While that's been happening for as long as history has been written, the trans "movement" has turbocharged it—by retroactively re-writing Female warriors, leaders, innovators, other history-makers as "non-binary".
First they came for Joan of Arc, then Hatshepsut, then a whole deluge of extraordinary historical Women... the endgame of which, basically leaves us with just the aforementioned wives and helpmeets. "Supporting actresses" as it were. A "history" with zero Female protagonists anywhere in it.
(I'm astonished that they haven't come for Boudicca yet. Or maybe some British museum did in fact turn Boudicca into a he/they or a they/them, but nobody's writing about it on the internet because Keir Starmer will send them to jail for two years if they do.)
Well okay... wives, helpmeets, and occasional villainesses. They'll let us keep the Women whom pop history has preserved purely as objects of hate and resentment, like Marie Antoinette—who (let's all be unshocked together) was vilified more-or-less entirely for things She never actually did, and in a few cases other people's crimes that She was framed for (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affair_of_the_Diamond_Necklace).
You are conflating evolutionary development of sex based traits with ideology. There are men accused of doing things they didn't do like you are fling now by claiming men reduced woen to wives or house mates. The comfortable western world women live in today which was built by men, has caused women to believe their historically being wives and mothers was something forced upon them by men. They filled those roles for the same reason men fulfilled their role of being the protector and provider; the sexes ate not the same and thus are not interchangeable. If women back then tried to be men.like they are today and men tried to be women as Mulvaney is trying to do, humans would have died off quickly centuries ago.
Only women can birth babies and without them there is no next generation. Before modern times women often lost a fair number of children either during the pregnancy or shortly after birth. This meant most had to have several babies to.ensure the bloodline persisted. Back then just the idea of abortion would shock women and men because the idea of intentionally killing an unborn child would be viewed as cutting off your own.limbs, intentionally disabling your families chance of success.
Additionally, women could not do what men did. There were no cushy office jobs in air conditioned buildings. With the exception of the very few royalty, men had a harder life than the women often risking their lives simply to provide and protect. Back then survival had a far lower level of success thrn it does today. Women Back then would consider a modern day stay at home wife and mother role as being in heaven; not the oppressive slavery most feminists today view it as.
By evolutionary design, men are made to be protectors, providers and leaders of the tribe. Women.are made to.birth the next generation, to nurture the family and be leader of the household. When we let ideology like feminism convice us what we are biologically made to.do is the opposite of what we should do we short circuit the the possible successful outcome of the family and of the tribe. Exactly as is playing out today as every western society is looking at population collapse bc feminism convinced women to ge like men and abandon family for the career boss babe path that leads to loneliness and bitterness. The boss babe life is great at first but once you hot that age where bearing children becomes risky all those opportunities for a good husband you had until.then quickly fade away.
There are exceptions but those are the outliers, the few. The overwhelming majority of women who.chooae the boss babe path will find themselves alone, childless and bitter/angry bc by the time they realize it was a mistake, its too late to fix it. We're already seeing it happen. The current backlash against feminism is growing and even women, including highly educated women, are saying feminism is a lie. If you're not yet in your 30s and your a boss babe you should course correct before its too late. The joy of holding your child in your arms and watching them grow is what makes life worth it all.
"On the historical reduction of Women to little more than just the wives and/or helpmeets of famous men:
While that's been happening for as long as history has been written...."
And this i is a common feminist lie that many women and some men propagate. There was no "historical reduction of women". As I pointed out life for both sexes was tough and they did not have the luxury as we do today for one sex to try and be like the other; not if they wanted to survive. No where in your post is it clear if you are agreeing with this fiction or if you were you commenting about it being done which is why I ended with "If" and didn't assume you were one vs the other.
I was calling him "Man Boleyn".
Clever play on words
"Trans Boleyn" lol
Exactly this.
In our caWsbar XSpace last summer, I spoke about the great push in Canada in the 80s and 90s to bring more women into the theatre - more women playwrights, more directors… means more ROLES for WOMEN!
But Canadian theatres In the past decade, including Toronto’s Nightwood Theatre - Canada’s long-standing feminist theatre, now categorizes live-play-acting men as women, where they can now replace us once again.
And now this slap in the face.
Perhaps this was just what we need to bring you another production from Women’s Underground Theatre (WUT).
Stay tuned.
Like all discussioms of the precarious standing of Women's stories about Women, this one reminds me of the Bechdel test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test). But alas, Allison Bechdel herself has been a rabid TRA fully onboard with the idea that men can be women (probably even better women than Women could🙄)—and therefore that stories entirely by and about not just men, but men whose explicit goal is to erase and/or pervert our collective understanding of Women and Womanhood, can pass her test with flying colors—for double-digit years now.
It's like crabs in a bucket sometimes, i swear
Especially around erasure through policy drift rather than open debate.
What many people miss is that movements to expand opportunity only work when they actually protect the group they were built for. When definitions change without consent, transparency, or material safeguards, the outcome isn’t inclusion; it’s displacement.
Theatre has always been a place where power dynamics get rehearsed before they show up everywhere else. Naming that tension matters. Building something independent, intentional, and accountable; like what you’re hinting at; is often how balance gets restored when institutions stop listening.
I’ll be watching.
... and why did Henry VIII have six wives? BECAUSE HE WANTED THEM TO BIRTH HIM A SON - HE WANTED THEM AS BABY-MAKERS.
Henry hadv6 wives but it wasn't a harem, he was married to one at a time. From.thpsw 6 he had 6 children, 3 of which didn't survive infancy. Of the 3 that did only 1 was a male who made it to the throne but dud at 15 bc he was sickly. Next was Mary who upon her death was replaced by Elizabeth 1 whom history considered ine of the greatest rulers of Britain.
So while he had 6 wives ( sequentially as he wasn't polygamous) In the end his desire for a male heir lead yo one of Britain's greatest rulers. Henry wanted a male heir badly due to resistance and fear of another queen ruling over Britain for the last queen ended up starting a Civil War, the Anarchy
I despise Dylan Mulvaney. Although I agree with everything you have said, but this casting is all about marketing. Dylan is living proof that there is no such thing as bad publicity. The producers no doubt believe this will shake things up and fill more seats. Unfortunately it’s Broadway and not Bud Lite…so I don’t think it will backfire, but sadly a man has usurped a role that should be featuring an actual woman.
This play will flop. Nobody outside of the gay community and a few lost women will be interested in paying to see this guy mock women.
It’s been a successful Broadway show and has even been touring successfully. I think that this is an attempt to breathe some life back into it as it nears the end of its run. Would like to see him kill it the way that casting Billy Porter ended the recent Cabaret revival.
Lol. That would be poetic justice then.
"Nobody outside of the gay community and a few lost women" So... Broadway?
Exactly 😅
Unfortunately the rabid straight female “allies” (the “fag hags” of yesteryear) absolutely lap up this Dylan mulvaney shit. It’s a brilliant marketing move but I’m so pissed too.
Have you seen his "normalize the bulge" performance? It's nauseating. He's a trainer. That's his role. A Pied Piper.
No I haven’t seen it. Ugh. I can’t stand this guy.
It might be near the end because it’s been running strong for 5 years now, most of the current cast is leaving and casting someone with no acting experience is the kind of stuntcasting that usually happens to gin up interest on the way out, but no. This play is the furthest thing from a flop in the world of musicals. It’s maybe the biggest musical since Hamilton.
To be clear…Dylan toured with Book of Mormon. He actually does have experience. I just don’t like him. (And I would have despised him even if he never played at being “trans” for attention. He is a long time attention whore…Google the video of his antics as a contestant on The Price Is Right or when he performed with The Skivies…total cringe.)
I despise him also for his fake smile and his in your face, women , attitude.So glad he failed Budweiser and I hope he makes a big flop for this play!
I hope he crashes and burns. I'm sick of his "days of girlhood" antics.
While I am familiar with the idea that there is no such thing as bad publicity however I'd say Hollywood has been learning over the last 10 years, after it decided to put the pro-Affirmative Action/DEI ideology into over drive that publicity has been very much bad for them. It took a few years to catch up with them but it's definitely been bad publicity. Hollywood does not appear to be suffering as badly as Bud Lite did because Hollywood is a much larger entity with a much broader market and appeal. Bud lite is more like a singular Hollywood IP that's been run into the ground by the toxic garbage. Hollywood can put out a lot of failed product and still survive, unlike Bud lite, because it can also put out non-woke infected content at the same time. This means Hollywood can go longer before being forced to course correct. While Hollywood puts out ideological crap like the recent Star Trek shows it also puts out the various Tyler Sheridan series which have done really well.. Hollywood is more like a diverse investment where as Bud Lite is more like a singular stock.
All that said, eventually any/all vendors who provide a product or service will be forced to pick between ideological messaging and content your customer base wants it just takes longer to make Hollywood feel the pain of its mistakes. Covid and Streaming Services have also provided Hollywood with an alternative excuse to provide shareholders and investors for why profits are down. Disney is a studio putting out ideological trash however it's also a cruise line, an amusement park and more. Those other lines of products/services have allowed the Disney Studio to more easily absorb the losses from its studio business. Had Paramount or Warner Bros acquired the Star Wars IP , Darth Kennedy would have been tossed out on her ass long ago because a studio that is just a studio would not have been able to afford the loses caused by her bad decisions.
it really is another smack on the face for women. l hope all women boycott the play.
Hasn’t she suffered enough?
👏 👏 👏 thank you Amy, as always your clear voice is much appreciated
Trans Boleyn…oh boy! What will they think of next …and why this travesty? Mulvaney is the king of fakes… I hate his fake smile…all lies with flashing teeth! Ugh!
I completely disagree with Dylan Mulvaney and the trans movement; women should not have their private spaces like locker rooms and even public spaces like sports, invaded by mentally broken men pretending to be women. That said, what they are doing highlights a long running hypocrisy of the feminist movement regarding single sex spaces.
In the 80s/90s the feminist movement was demanding access to male only spaces such as gyms and gentlemen’s clubs. I know b/c I was a young man at the time and witnessed this personally as I belonged to a gym with men only. Eventually the feminists won, gaining access to these spaces. At the time, there were female only spaces (i.e. gyms) and apparently it was OK that women had female only spaces, but men were allowed no such thing. Men were not seeking out and demanding access to traditionally female only spaces, but feminists were doing exactly that to male only spaces.
This is not something isolated. In the 2010’s a group of men in the UK created a men’s only club, the UK Men's Sheds Association, where the men would meet at a workshop like space to talk with each other, discussing things they rather not discuss with women not even their wives, while building things; while doing that which mean naturally enjoy doing. After a few years, women demanded access to this space. It was mainly the spouses of the men who were demanding access and eventually with enough pressure, the men gave in and the women got access to that space. Within a very short time the women ruined the space for the men by demanding changes that appealed to women which the men did not care for. Eventually this chased away the men due to the changes the women demanded as well as it no longer being a male only space, no longer being a safe space for mento talk openly and freely.
This is a very common story, where women demand access to traditionally male only spaces and upon gaining access, they then demand changes to accommodate female preferences (and I don't mean adding a women's bathroom) and in doing so, they so change the space that many if not all of the men leave the space. I am %100 for female only spaces and yet for some reason it’s a problem for men to have their own spaces. I’m not saying you are like this, only that many feminist women are and it’s very hypocritical.
There's a very good reason men want gyms for men only. Today women are driving men out of gyms with their video taping of their workout for social media, and thru claims of harassment of the men who are doing nothing more than what they normally do. Anytime an attractive women puts on skin tight clothing that reveals a lot, most men are going to take a glance at the woman; it's only natural. Today these women who video tape their work-out for social media (and sometimes things like OnlyFans) when men either simply get close or take a glance at her, the woman then tries to shame the man in their video. As a man, when things like this are allowed to happen it makes men not want to support the efforts to get transwomen out of women’s spaces.
For whatever reason some women can’t tolerate men having a male only space and so they end up demanding access to that space and once in it they so change the space that the men no longer want to be there. How is that not hypocrisy?
Ah-HAH so You're not just ••randomly•• such a compelling speaker. Gotcha! 🤗
Imagine the humiliation of being one of the five (presumably) actual Women cast alongside Mr. Mulvaney—and billed below him, of course. It seems almost worse than if they'd gone full Athenian/Shakespearean mode and just cast men to play all six "wives".
.
Not sure if this is meant to be assumed knowledge here, but, Mr. Mulvaney too had a first career in the theater—off-Broadway in fact. So this would be like returning to his roots, if it weren't for the wrong-sex casting (... where we just KNOW there won't be any camp/slapstick-style laughs built into the role in a token effort to make it minimally palatable to normal people, since that'd obviously be twanz jennasyde).
The worst part is, Mr. Mulvaney is actually a decent singer as the tenor that he is in real life—but i'm sure he's been written a contralto part ostensibly designed to be sung by an actual Woman, which will inevitably have disastrous results. (This was tried in a "music" video posted on YT a couple years ago—where those quote marks should be read as the world's biggest finger quotes—and Mr. Mulvaney is, let's just say, not exactly Chris Cornell when it comes to singing in his head voice.)
This is Dylan Mulvaney's newest gig ... "normalize the bulge". All to take away women's and girls rights and normalize their fetish.
https://open.substack.com/pub/knownheretic/p/normalize-the-bulge?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
On the historical reduction of Women to little more than just the wives and/or helpmeets of famous men:
While that's been happening for as long as history has been written, the trans "movement" has turbocharged it—by retroactively re-writing Female warriors, leaders, innovators, other history-makers as "non-binary".
First they came for Joan of Arc, then Hatshepsut, then a whole deluge of extraordinary historical Women... the endgame of which, basically leaves us with just the aforementioned wives and helpmeets. "Supporting actresses" as it were. A "history" with zero Female protagonists anywhere in it.
(I'm astonished that they haven't come for Boudicca yet. Or maybe some British museum did in fact turn Boudicca into a he/they or a they/them, but nobody's writing about it on the internet because Keir Starmer will send them to jail for two years if they do.)
Well okay... wives, helpmeets, and occasional villainesses. They'll let us keep the Women whom pop history has preserved purely as objects of hate and resentment, like Marie Antoinette—who (let's all be unshocked together) was vilified more-or-less entirely for things She never actually did, and in a few cases other people's crimes that She was framed for (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affair_of_the_Diamond_Necklace).
You are conflating evolutionary development of sex based traits with ideology. There are men accused of doing things they didn't do like you are fling now by claiming men reduced woen to wives or house mates. The comfortable western world women live in today which was built by men, has caused women to believe their historically being wives and mothers was something forced upon them by men. They filled those roles for the same reason men fulfilled their role of being the protector and provider; the sexes ate not the same and thus are not interchangeable. If women back then tried to be men.like they are today and men tried to be women as Mulvaney is trying to do, humans would have died off quickly centuries ago.
Only women can birth babies and without them there is no next generation. Before modern times women often lost a fair number of children either during the pregnancy or shortly after birth. This meant most had to have several babies to.ensure the bloodline persisted. Back then just the idea of abortion would shock women and men because the idea of intentionally killing an unborn child would be viewed as cutting off your own.limbs, intentionally disabling your families chance of success.
Additionally, women could not do what men did. There were no cushy office jobs in air conditioned buildings. With the exception of the very few royalty, men had a harder life than the women often risking their lives simply to provide and protect. Back then survival had a far lower level of success thrn it does today. Women Back then would consider a modern day stay at home wife and mother role as being in heaven; not the oppressive slavery most feminists today view it as.
By evolutionary design, men are made to be protectors, providers and leaders of the tribe. Women.are made to.birth the next generation, to nurture the family and be leader of the household. When we let ideology like feminism convice us what we are biologically made to.do is the opposite of what we should do we short circuit the the possible successful outcome of the family and of the tribe. Exactly as is playing out today as every western society is looking at population collapse bc feminism convinced women to ge like men and abandon family for the career boss babe path that leads to loneliness and bitterness. The boss babe life is great at first but once you hot that age where bearing children becomes risky all those opportunities for a good husband you had until.then quickly fade away.
There are exceptions but those are the outliers, the few. The overwhelming majority of women who.chooae the boss babe path will find themselves alone, childless and bitter/angry bc by the time they realize it was a mistake, its too late to fix it. We're already seeing it happen. The current backlash against feminism is growing and even women, including highly educated women, are saying feminism is a lie. If you're not yet in your 30s and your a boss babe you should course correct before its too late. The joy of holding your child in your arms and watching them grow is what makes life worth it all.
None of that has any relevance to my comment.
I disagree. The start of your post was:
"On the historical reduction of Women to little more than just the wives and/or helpmeets of famous men:
While that's been happening for as long as history has been written...."
And this i is a common feminist lie that many women and some men propagate. There was no "historical reduction of women". As I pointed out life for both sexes was tough and they did not have the luxury as we do today for one sex to try and be like the other; not if they wanted to survive. No where in your post is it clear if you are agreeing with this fiction or if you were you commenting about it being done which is why I ended with "If" and didn't assume you were one vs the other.