That isn't true at all. Most women despised it because they wanted more for themselves... a career a dream, etc. They did exactly what you are saying but it wasn't because they wanted too it was because that was the role society gave them. Just because it has changed now doesn't mean they didn't want it back then. That is naive.
Well it is true, so yeah. You don't have to agree with it, you do have to accept reality however. As for "wanting more for themselves", that is projecting. The biggest opposition to women's suffrage was women. They believed that each gender had their circle, for men it was the political, economical and defense, for women it was the nurturing and social and maintaining. In fact this was one of their biggest arguments (anti suffragest women (which again were the majority of anti suffragests), that the right to vote would interefere with the gender roles and destroy the unique niche women had. They were, arguablly, correct in that assumption. As for your last comment, presuming that because you were raised with an ideology that demonized the role of women through out all of history and demonized men (as you have to presume that all men for no particular reason held women down against their will and those same women raised their children to oppress them and married oppressive men and never fought back against this oppression for absolutely no particular reason given, for all of history no less), that historically this was the case is naive, especially when you consider the fact that we have data on those eras and history all of which completely contradict your claims.
For example women were happier in the 50s then they are today. Women are currently the largest consumers of anti depressants (yes I'm sure you agree with feminists that this is some how men's fault because "reasons"), statistically women in traditional gender roles and martial roles are happier. Statistically women actively seek jobs that are more flexible with their schedules so that they can take more time off to be with their children and families. The first female doctor in the US got her doctorate in the 1850s, the first nobel prize winner that was a woman was Madame Curie in 1903, in physics, and she won another in chemistry in 1911. The first female millionaire (at least well documented) was Madame C. J. Walker around the same time frame as Madam Curie, she was self made business woman (famed for her innovations in marketing and selling (door to door sales women, targeted marketing etc.).So this idea that women couldn't work if they chose is stupid, especially since basic knowledge of history shows otherwise, as well as the fact that this is the information age were you can acquire more information now with your phone then some one could with an entire university library at their disposal just fourty years ago. The goal for women was to not work (because that is what poor women had to do, work) so they could focus on their families and communities. So again, everything I stated was not only true, its very easily verified. Everything you stated was by extension, provably false but also incredibly demeaning to women and sexist towards men.
Then verify it. I will be here waiting.
And you will be dismissive of the evidence when you get it (people are highly predictable). I will however provide the evidence (unfortunately its written by people like yourself who impose their world view on the data instead of letting it speak for itself) so some of it will have your bias in it (by claiming these women were just stupid or corrupt or what have you for opposing suffrage for themselves instead of listening to the arguemnts THEY made as to why they opposed it).www.thevintagenews.com/.../www.nytimes.com/.../...uments-for-and-against.htmlthefederalist.com/.../www.historyextra.com/.../www.thisismoney.co.uk/.../...day--happier-now.htmlwww.dailymail.co.uk/.../...n-happy-years-ago-.htmlhttp://ftp.iza.org/dp4200.pdfwww.asanet.org/.../Feb13ASRFeature.pdflink.springer.com/.../s11199-011-0017-2Now feel free to say that none of this counts, that you need more evidence, or tell me it is all wrong because you don't like what it says etc. etc. etc.(been through all of this far to many times to be stupid enough to think you will accept reality). The irony is your world view requires you to hate women. You think that being feminine is inherently inferior and thus need women to act like men, to want what men want to do what men do and if they don't something is wrong with them. It also requires you to believe that all men were just outright evil for all of history (except of course you, your the only good man left because you want women to be like men instead of women).
The irony is your world view requires you to hate womenYou don't know me. All I did was disagree with you. I love when people assume they know someone and their so called world view. All you had to do was leave the links. some of the info is actually good.
I didn't assume anything though? If you are saying that women are identical to men and must like what men like act like men, think like men, and be men in every significant way (beyond genitals) then your saying you don't like women. If you are claiming that all women through out all of history were opressed by all men (which is quite literally what is required to believe that women were oppressed through out all of history (unless your suggesting aliens showed up and did it?)), then you are sexist towards men and also think women are weak and stupid to the point were they can be treated as chattel (never happened) for all of history without putting up any resistence what so ever. These were your word man, not mine, I was just calling you out for it. Its like claiming that you didn't call a person a liar, you just said that everything they said was a lie. Its the same thing, you don't get to pretend its not. So if these are your views (which you espoused) then this is quite literally what you believe and thus what you think. If you don't like it, don't claim to believe that, its really quite simple.
Nothing? No admission of being wrong, no explanation as to how you can believe that all women were oppressed for all of history by men and not be sexist towards men? No explanation as to how you could appreciate and love women while simultaneously demanding that they be identical copies of men?
I didn't assume anything though? If you are saying that women are identical to men Where did I say this... please copy and paste below. You simply want to paint a picture with stuff I never said hence you ASS U ME. I am a content creator and post all kinds of questions that go viral here on GAG. Just stop already dude. You don't know me.
You stated that women want the same things that men do, that is why you made the assumption that women hated gender differences which existed in the 50s (providing zero evidence of this (which makes it an assumption, one that was incorrect as I did produce evidence proving the contrary)) and then stated that they secretly wanted careers, that they didn't want to be housewives they didn't want to stay home and raise the kids the implication being that they wanted everything a man wants thus you assumed that women want everything a man wants and that their is something wrong with a woman not wanting those things hence you claiming that no woman (or at least few of them) wanted what they had in the 50s (again despite them openly stating the exact opposite). So all of that was an assumption on your part and all of it was an assertion that feminine behavior is some how wrong and only male behavior is acceptable hence you trying to suggest that women will only behave in that fashion (feminine) if forced into it. Unless you can explain how all of that can occur without those assumptions and requirements (though I dont see how that would work)?
As for your "content creator" yeah you post questions on GAG congratulations, you post questions on a site where anyone can post questions. I make comments on this site, you know the site that anyone can make comments on, does that make me special as well? Also while we are at it, maybe you could explain how that has anything to do with this situation?So so far you have made assumptions and I have responded to those assumptions, if you would like to clarify your stance (as I have requested) by all means do so, so we can clear this up.
You are one angry guy. You should get some help with that.
Angry? At what point was I angry? I was pointing out that if we follow the logic you get a certain conclusion. Are you refering to how much I type? If so that is not an indicator of anger, in fact if I write less I'm more likely to be annoyed then if I write a lot, I respond that way to all questions here (I don't know how to be succinct apparently). Also you haven't addressed any points made.So again, if you do not like my conclusions, then by all means explain it to me because as far as I can tell if you say that women didn't want to do traditionally feminine things and instead wanted what was traditionally within the realm of masculine achievement AND that this is some how a good thing, the only conclusion that can be drawn as far as I can tell is that you do not value the traditional feminine role.
If you believe that women only act the way they do because men made them (this is the implication of claiming that all (or most) women were unhappy in the fifties and that all (or most) wanted careers (statistically wrong as I have pointed out and you have yet to address), then that suggests that you think their is something wrong with women wanting to be traditional, wanting to do traditionally feminine roles as the idea that they could want that is foreign to you. And finally, if you think that all women were oppressed for all history by men, then you have to have a very low opinion of men (especially since again, this is provably false), and is thus sexist towards men as it requires you to believe that all men are inherently amoral at best and at worse immoral. So in which of these was my conclusion incorrect (and provide an actual logical argument rather then side stepping the issue so I can actually understand if my conclusions were false or if it is just you suffering from cognitive dissonance as your confronted with (and which you will inevitablly reject) the realization that your ideological beliefs are not only inconsistent with reality (again, I have pointed that out with statistical data) but also require a, in my opinion, twisted view of men and women which is inherently sexist. Because as far as I can tell that is what is happening as you refuse to explain how one could come to a different conclusion then that based upon your world view.
Also to clarify when I say your world view that is quite literally based upon your words, so its not an assumption on my part except in so far as that I am assuming you were being honest with your statements.
I stand by my comment. I could get my grandmother and Aunt Trudy to comment but they are dead. Agree to disagree. Move on.
Why would I agree to disagree? I posted you factual data, their is no disagreement here, I posted what is fact and you are saying that you don't like it so don't want to believe it. I mean you can agree to disagree with the historical documents if you want but I don't think they will care all that much. Also you continue to ignore my question about how one can believe that all men oppressed all women and that not be sexist towards men or how believing that the traditional feminine role is bad and being dumbfounded at the prospect that a woman would want to live her life in that way is not looking down on femininity and women. Your just going to completely ignore all of this aren't you? Well not unexpected, not every one has the guts to face themselves nor to question their ideals even when faced with facts that prove them wrong, but while it is not unexpected it is still disappointing.
Historical documents? Get out of here! These are articles and none of them say ALL women none. So please stop putting ALL women in the same box!
I never said all women, why would you claim that? I said women, a generalization that itself implies that the vast majority of women but not all women as all things have exceptions. That is a far cry different then asserting that every single woman that has ever lived felt this way. I pointed out that this is precisely what your implications were and even went so far as to assert that you were stating all or at least most women felt x and that itself was not correct. So now your making straw man arguments in order to avoid having to answer the questions posited, why? Are you afraid of answering them because you know were that will lead?
I just did. Sorry you don't like the answers.
No you didn't. I presented evidence that you asked for and your "answer" was "NOT ALL WOMEN" which no one has at any point in time stated. I was pointing out that in general, the data shows that your statement about all women (or most women) was incorrect. You did not provide an answer just a strawman argument (you attacked an argument that was never made in the form of "not all women" which was not an argument and wasn't related to the points made).You also didn't answer my other points about how you can claim all (or almost all) women were oppressed by all (or mostly all) men without it being demeaning and sexist towards men. You also didn't answer my third point of how you could find it unbelievable that women would want to be homemakers, to want to be traditionally feminine and arguing that this had to be men forcing them into it, isn't in fact demeaning to women and femininity as your acting as if the only right way to be is to be traditionally masculine. In addition to all of this I would also ask why are you afraid to admit you are wrong (as again, I provided sources for my argument you have not, I have explained my rational for the conclusions drawn based upon your arguments and you have refused to clarify or point to how my arguments could be in fact irrational (despite me asking you to prove them wrong on several occasions)), is it because of ego or are you afraid to have to reappraise your worldview/huristics that you use to navigate your life? If so why?So no, you have dismissed evidence and arguments, you have made strawman arguments, you have argued from incredulity but you have not actually answered anything. So my questions still stand.
Wow I am so sorry this bothers you so much. That was not my intention. At least GAG gave you MHO. You should thank them.
It doesn't bother me, what you do is standard behavior for 90% of humanity. I am simply trying to get you to see it so that you can change for the better. Not particularly sucessful with it obviously but I don't know how to manipulate people I only know how to tell them the truth which has never won anyone over in the history of our species. Not that I won't keep trying of course, but its an uphill battle.So, would you like to answer my questions now or are you going to continue to try and avoid answering them because your afraid of what it may say about your perceptions of yourself and the world?
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
I love a good grilled cheese with crispy bacon and chilled tomato slices.
It may be burnt. I don't cook
LOL 😆 🤣 😂
What accomplishments or goals do you have
@Guardian45 Can you make me a grilled cheese dude and not burn it?
As a matter of fact, I make an excellent grilled cheese! LOL 😆 🤣 😂
Can I order a grilled cheese with harvarti and gouda? 🥺😳
@Guardian45 Dude I love you man.
You don't think George Clooney is in love?
Don't know. I don't know anything about his love life.
Love is dead man. Im sorry lol
No because she can also be part of the business or have her own business along side of yours. It's not her supporting you its both of you supporting each other and the talents that create the empire.
I don't know where you would find such an aggressive woman in the first place but second i personality wouldn't find her sexually attractive. But thats me.
Then prepare to be alone through out the whole ride. Lol