Indeed, I was thinking in the western world.>>13346243
Indeed, there was some patronization going on, but that mainly came as a RESULT of previous sexual structures. Think of it this way- if you've lived your whole life where women were kept from extreme work, indeed you might make the leap that women should be kept from all forms of "work".
In all reality, I can't blame people in that respect, though. At the time, society was far too unstable to justify letting women do anything but make kids. Think of it like you're playing a really advanced Civilization game- if you had rampant death and birth and war, would you let women (with nasty 9 month carrying periods) do anything but make kids? Or would you allow them to do the same work as men and risk going extinct?
I know it sounds ridiculous, but you have to remember that it's not like men got to go out and play whilst women were chained to a stove. Men were quite literally fodder for whatever war- and were mostly used to do menial tasks like farming and/or kill each other with rudimentary weapons.
It's just been a slow process during the world's industrialization where people really realized that such structures were no longer necessary, i.e. the birth and death rate was somewhat stabilized.
Now, that's not to say that feminists are the bringers of change, though. Some "feminist" movements have been beneficial, such as the suffrage movements in the early 20th century. These were agents for change. Claiming that women should be both promoted through artificial law and yet absolved from any error on their part is fucking stupid.