Final answer:
The subordination of women is not a universal experience, as women's status varies by culture and context, influenced by intersectional factors. Historical patterns of inequality emerge when women are confined to private spheres or denied equal opportunities in public spheres. Yet these patterns of subordination continue to exist, as seen in discrepancies in pay and representation in various sectors.
Step-by-step explanation:
Discussions around whether women are universally subordinate tend to show that status and experiences greatly vary, informed by intersectional factors like race, class, ethnicity, age, sexuality, and physical ability. The lens of intersectionality reveals that the subordination of women is indeed not a universal experience, but context-dependent and subject to a variety of social dynamics. For example, women of color in American society have historically been compelled to work outside the home due to economic necessity, entangling them further in a mix of public and private work roles, sometimes under supervision by other women.
When analyzing women's status from a historical context, it is clear that in different societies, statuses varied. Among gatherer-hunters, women enjoyed positions of equality when their contributions were central to subsistence. However, in agricultural and industrial societies, women were often relegated to the private sphere and became more subordinate. The division between the public and private spheres created this inequity.
Indeed, institutional and societal structures, such as those surrounding the Women's Suffrage Movement and debates over reproductive rights, demonstrate the challenges that women face when trying to overcome the dominant group's definition of success and opportunity. This reflects the standing of women as chronically subordinate to men. Such patterns are still visible in modern issues like the disparities in treatment and pay between men's and women's sports teams and the underrepresentation of women in executive positions.