The Myth Of Female Oppression

[Careless_Whisper]

The purpose of this myTake is to expose the big lie of female oppression. As Adolf Hitler once said, "If you tell a lie big enough, and keep repeating it, eventually people will come to believe it."

The mainstream media is responsible for most of the brainwashing. From childhood to adulthood people are repeatedly fed myths--by their parents, by the education system, and by the media. One of these myths is the belief that women have been oppressed for thousands of years. This myth has been repeated and taught for such a long time that it's almost impossible to undo the years of brainwashing, but if you take the time to read the rest of this myTake, hopefully you will see that female oppression is indeed a myth.

One complaint I often hear is that for years women were made to work in the kitchen and didn't have the same job opportunities as men. This argument is retarded on so many levels. First of all, many years ago people didn't have the technology we have today. There were no computers for women to work in offices. Most of the jobs were dirty, dangerous, physical jobs. How silly would it have been in those days for the men to stay at home and allow their wives to do these unpleasant jobs? If the roles were reversed, the feminists would be complaining how easy it was for men, staying at home in the kitchen while their wives went out doing all the hard, dangerous jobs. And yes, you can always find exceptions to the rule, but in general it was the men who did most of the hard, physical, dangerous jobs. So why on earth do women today complain how hard it was for women being stuck in the kitchen looking after the house?

Another complaint is that men, for thousands of years, had the advantage in marriage and could get away with abusing their wives. This is somewhat true, but there is another side to this. The feminists would have you believe that it was common practice, that men in general just enjoyed abusing their wives. But this is not true. Most men, by nature, have a stroing desire to protect women. My guess is that the overwhelming majority of men looked after their wives. And throughout history, men have also died to protect women. How many women have died to protect men? Not many. It's usually the men who die to protect women. Not only that, but in those days it was the husband who was responsible for the wellbeing of his family. If a husband did not provide for his family, even after a divorce, he could be severely shamed or even put in prison. It wasn't like a husband could do whatever he wanted. Far from it. Another thing to remember is that is depends what time in history you go back to. The laws and society have changed many times over the centuries. There were times when women had it harder, and times when men had it harder. You can't say it's always been the same for thousands of years. It hasn't. So when people say that women were oppressed and men had it easy, what time period are they referring to?

Another complaint is that women could not vote. This is where people will call me a sexist woman hater. But I'm not going to be politically correct. I have to tell the truth. Maybe the reason women could not vote is because women tend to vote for the things that harm society. Women usually go by their emotions, and their emotions are often unstable and unpredictable. In fact, if I understand correctly, it was mostly women who voted for Hitler. The fact is, when it comes to making sound, logical decisions, women tend to make bad choices. Not because they are stupid, but because they are driven by emotions. Ever since women have been empowered, the family unit has become a shadow of its former self. So manybe not allowing women to vote was a good idea. And I don'tsee how not being allowed to vote is oppression. Most politicians are liars and traitors anyway.

Please give your opinions

[heavensgift2girls]

Until recently most men couldn't vote either. In the places where men could vote and where women couldn't it was tied directly to the male responsibility of military service, which men could be forced into and where the women would mock men for being cowards if he didn't want to join.

Feminists also like to complain that men could beat their wives, but ignore that the women could also beat their husbands, and parents could beat their children. Or how if women broke the law, in order to protect the woman, the society would hold the husband accountable. Sometimes even punishing the husband if people found out his wife beat him while nothing was done to the wife.

Feminists like to forget that past societies were made up of both men, and women, and the women in the past often fight to enforce gender roles, because women actually gained a lot under the old system. In fact that is why most women in Islamic countries reject feminism to this day. They don't want to give up the privileges that come with being a woman. Instead they twist the facts from the past to try and make women of the past seem victimized, in order to spread their sexist propaganda about how evil men have been through the centuries.

I suspect that ignoring the contributions of past women in society also serves another purpose to build up modern day women, so they can fool themselves into thinking they are stronger than the women of the past, even though the women of the past were clearly stronger and more worthy of respect than these wanna be permanent victims that pass for women today. It is like if they aren't viewed as the victim every second of the day, that they think it is proof of the world being against them.

People can find examples of sexist laws toward both genders. That doesn't mean they were nothing but victims throughout all of history, or that the other gender had it any better. Yet feminism prays on the ignorance of its followers to not know any better, as they pick and choose what parts of history to teach in order to spread its propaganda.

[kaylaS91]

'Feminists like to forget that past societies were made up of both men, and women, and the women in the past often fight to enforce gender roles, because women actually gained a lot under the old system. In fact that is why most women in Islamic countries reject feminism to this day. They don't want to give up the privileges that come with being a woman. Instead they twist the facts from the past to try and make women of the past seem victimized, in order to spread their sexist propaganda about how evil men have been through the centuries.'

... women living in Islamic countries don't want to give up their privileges? Please do specify which 'privileges' they possess.

[heavensgift2girls]

It is the job of the man to provide for all of the woman's needs. If the woman were to get a job, the man would not have any claim to her money. His money is their money, and her money is her money. If a man can't earn enough money to feed their kids, and the woman is rich, he alone is responsible for his child starving as she is under no obligation to spend her money on anyone but herself.

This works well for women when times are good. It isn't until times get hard, and jobs are harder to find, then the men are forced to pass laws making it harder for women to work, so that men can fulfill his legal obligations. After all, every job held by a women, is a job that could be held by a man that needs a job so he isn't breaking the law. As economies have suffered in the middle east, we have seen women's rights restricted for that reason. Their privileges are the cause of many of their unequal rights.

[heavensgift2girls]

@kaylaS91 Actually if you just talked to a woman from one of those countries, even if she was a feminist she would likely still tell you the same thing I am telling you. Most of the other women in those countries don't want feminism, because the old ways give them a certain level of security they don't want to give up. This is a more complex issue than men just mistreating women.

[ThisDudeHere]

Thumbs up for you.

[zero444440000]

"I suspect that ignoring the contributions of past women in society also serves another purpose to build up modern day women, so they can fool themselves into thinking they are stronger than the women of the past, even though the women of the past were clearly stronger and more worthy of respect than these wanna be permanent victims that pass for women today"
thank you! finally someone who acknowledge how strong the women of the past were.

[lumos]

"Most of the jobs were dirty, dangerous, physical jobs"
Uh, what? Hello? Teachers? Scientists? Journalists? Waitresses? Sales? Marketing? Customer service? Real estate? Retail? There are and have been literally thousands of jobs that aren't dirty/dangerous/physical that women could have worked with, but weren't allowed to. You don't need a computers or technology in general to work in an office. How is that even an argument? Men worked in offices without computers and technology?
Your entire paragraph on marriage is entirely based on guesses, assumptions and no facts whatsoever. If you're going to write a mytake on history, at least include facts and statistics without making your own biased assumptions on how you "guess" things were.

"And throughout history, men have also died to protect women."
Due to wars and conflicts that men themselves created, and decided that the women shouldn't partake in. Moot point. You can't be bitter over the fact that women weren't allowed to be sent to war when that's a choice that men themselves made.

"women tend to vote for the things that harm society"
Statistics? Polls? Or are you just pulling things out of your ass again and making assumptions?

"because they are driven by emotions"
Literally everyone is driven by emotions to an extent. Stop spouting this "men are logical, women are emotional" bullshit when it literally holds no water. If you're so logical, then how come you haven't cited any reputable sources, you have no statistics to back up your claims and you have absolutely no links to or quotes from any peer reviewed research?

"And I don'tsee how not being allowed to vote is oppression"
Silencing people is a form of oppression. Not allowing people to vote and express their political views = silencing them = oppressing them = not allowing them basic human rights.

[hellionthesage]

you listed jobs that did not exist for almost the entirety of history. Most jobs where agriculture, which required brute force, or manufacturing which was dangerous grueling work, or mining which required brute force was dangerous and grueling work. Those jobs really only started to exist in the thirties and women did do those jobs, in fact women maintain many jobs that are middle white collar jobs while men are the predominantly manual labor. In fact while many of those construction and such jobs have almost 15-20% women, the percentage of managers that are women are 15-20% ie no women in those fields are actually doing the manual labor, they are doing the white collar work which is safe and easy. Everything else you said is pretty much provably wrong, women where against the vote because they didn't want to go to war, men didn't start wars politicians did, that statment comes from the mistaken notion that 1% of the populations represents all of it.

[lumos]

@hellionthesage lmao what? There have always been teachers. Restaurants existed in ancient Greece and Rome, so naturally someone had to run them and clean up the mess. People have also been selling (and marketing) stuff for God knows how long. These jobs have existed basically ever since society became a thing. They have evolved and become more modernized yes, but that doesn't mean they haven't existed until very recently.
Majority of politicians are men, hence men were the ones who started wars. Never said all men were behind that decision. Just that it was men who made that decision, because they were in positions of power.

[Jack_S]

@hellionthesage your logic is flawed.

True those jobs were not around for the majority of history, but neither has feminism. As those jobs came into existence, exclusion of the gender in the workforce occured. This led to the movement (as it should have). By sayin feminism is wrong because it was unneeded for the majority of human civilization, you are showcasing your floundering arguments.

Also, dispite agreeomg with some of your arguments, the lady is right. Everything you base this on is "i guess" and assumptions.

[Careless_Whisper]

Like I said, it depends what time period you go back to. Throughout history women have still worked, but most jobs were very dirty and physical so it makes sense that men would do those jobs. And whether men have started wars or not doesn't change the fact that millions of men have still given their lives to protect women. They didn't have to, but they did, but women like you are just ungrateful. And yes, most people know that women are driven by emotions far more than what men are, yet you pretend to not know this. LOL.

[ObscuredBeyond]

@Jack_S : Where are the women in gold prospecting? Where are the women in oil rig operations? Why was there only ever one female regular on Mythbusters?

[Jack_S]

@ObscuredBeyond Can you elaborate on what you are getting at?

[hellionthesage]

No they had food stalls/vendors, much like street vendors of today, the restruant as we know it, which would have employed service workers or have more then one person, started in the18 century mostly due to the issues surroundingthe monarchy (the many personal chefs found themselves without jobs and thus created restruants). Either way women where not generally workers their. Teaching was rare, it was usually apprenticeships to certain educators which was again predominantly male, it was not until the industrial revolution in the 1700s that education as we know it came into existence, which is when women began to teach. Merchants have existed for quite some time but again this was primarily undertaken by men it was dangerous and difficult work requiring much travel and risks of robbery. As for politicians, the majority being men is literally meaningless, they are 1% of the population to claim that this 1% is representitive of 50% of the population is quite literally a

[hellionthesage]

logical fallacy, that of composition/division ie its the equivalent of me saying that since one woman murdered her child all women must therefore murder children, it is illogical. However one can argue that it was politicians who started wars predominantly, and you can argue that the rich where more likely to start wars since again, politicians are usually rich (and was very much a requirment through out history) but even then you have to at least for the rich, give leeway and acknowledge not all of them did so (only politicians have the power to actually start and run wars). Men where not in a position of power, as I stated if only 1% of the population can vote then one cannot act as if 50% of the population can vote. Male suffrage in the US did not occur until 1850s, less then seventy years before women (and again they only got that right because they where constantly conscripted, a responsibility women never had).

[hellionthesage]

Universal male suffrage in the UK didn't even occur until after WWI, so again the claim that men had power despite having no say in the government (and of course you overlooking that rich women actually had the right to vote if they owned enough land or where part of nobility/royalty dependent on region. and that the UK where men had no right to vote had been ruled by queens in multiple era's) while being forcibly conscripted into various public services that put them in danger is fallacious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_manhood_suffrage
www.telegraph.co.uk/.../...bout-male-suffrage.html
ergo you are incorrect and everything you have said is patently false and done in such away as to obfuscate the truth.

[hellionthesage]

@Jack_S Women did work, however the primary goal for women was to not work but to stay at home hence the majority of antifeminist being women: www.nebraskastudies.org/.../0701_0112.html
They where afraid it would take away their privledges the ones they got and men didn't. The only reason why you make the claim that you do is because those feminist rewrote history since they dominate the educational system and have completely mislead the populace, hence no one beign aware that men never had the right to vote (their where even out right revolts, like the dohr rebellion, to protest it). It was only when the majority of women wanted the right to vote that it was given to them, and without all of the responsibilites that where the soul reason men got to vote. As I have shown with my links. So no, this is not assumptions, this is not guessing, this is historical fact which again I have provided links for both here and in my own post and many many other posts like this one.

[Jack_S]

@hellionthesage you make excellent points and i made a mistake. I thought your original post was that of the mytake op. In his words he literally says "i guess" in places and makes assumptions through out.

My moostake

[hellionthesage]

@Jack_S Its fine, my original comment was made at about 5:30 in the morning so it was a bit rushed (felt like I was dying a little) so no harm no foul.

[BuchitaBuchys]

This is why you're one of my favorites.

[YourFutureEx]

@hellionthesage awesome man. Nothing can beat the facts. Cheers! :)

[hellionthesage]

@YourFutureEx Thank you and I agree, the beauty of truth is its inmutable and undeniable.

[zero444440000]

@hellionthesage nothing is better then the truth i agree.

[nalaa]

Actually, do you know why women take their husbands name?
It's because last names used to be indicative of jobs and women worked in their fathers or husbands profession. If your husband was a tailor, so were you.
Some people seem to think women always stayed at home but that's not true. Women always worked and they worked the same jobs as men, tho granted not always the same duties.
Difference tho, they couldn't own land or even exist as legal entity without a man

Women staying at home was always a privilege for the rich. With one notable exception, the post ww2 era. But that's it. An era of general wealth and well being and then somehow people look back on this pretty much unique period of time and think women didn't have it so bad then.
That's because most people didn't have it so bad then. Look at the late 1800s if you want to see oppression

" that it was common practice" -- no noone claims that. Fact is, we don't know if it was common practice or not. Fact is men legally allowed to even kill their wife and children and that's wrong. And the law didn't change until a few people exactly that and the judges thought it was wrong but couldn't legally punish them and that wasn't until the 1900s. Did men before then think it was ok?

" Maybe the reason women could not vote is because women tend to vote for the things that harm society" no that's not that the reason. Women couldn't vote because almost no one could vote. And then the idea was that men kinda elected representatives for their families. Just that that didn't always work out. Men weren't required to consult with their families before voting and many didn't.

"it was mostly women who voted for Hitler." where did you get that from? Because from what I know votes are and were anonymous, you can't determine gender from them.
From what I remember from my history classes was that during surveys gender was spread evenly, with only one out of three election in 1933, a marginally higher percentage women voted for the nsdap than men. There's even a book about it, that completely disproves that point

"Women usually go by their emotions" -- I have no idea where people get that idea from. I've never ever seen it my life. If anything it's the opposite with my parents. My dad tends to get really angry and make decisions then that he later regrets, says things he doesn't mean... it's a side effect of testosterone. Maybe why older men typically make better decisions than younger ones

[Careless_Whisper]

You're wrong. Men could not legally kill their wives. What planet are you on? If he was found guilty of such a crime he would have been hung, or maybe skinned alive depending what time period he lived in. What utter nonsense. If anything it was men being oppressed because men had to do most of the dirty, dangerous jobs while most women stayed at home. Millions of men also died to protect women, so please quit with the feminist myths.

[nalaa]

What planet are you on? I agree, it's outragous it's true and it's why you're wrong with your take.

In several countries, during time periods a man could kill his wife as some kind of "punishment" for some offenses, such adultery.
That was the law in many european countries until 1900s. I believe 1907 is the magic number for france. I think it was a few years earlier in the UK. It's still the law in some muslim countries. If not the law you can def get away with it, like this "priest" who killed his wife and daughter and got like a few months in prison

The reason it existed in the first place was, because it was an ancient roman law (lex julia , de Adulteriis Coercendis -- look it up ), that gave a father the right to kill his daughter, husband to kill his wife, if they catch he cheating. And as matter of fact Augustus himself was supposed to have killed his daughter after catching her with a man

[nalaa]

For the most part laws like that didn't last that long into the modern era and where they did were rarely enforced, but they did and do exist. No doubt about it.

But I mean, go on, stick to your filtered perception of history and reality.
Another good a link
www.icadvinc.org/.../

a few highlights

300 AD "Constantine the Great, has his wife burned alive when she is no longer of use to him."

1500s “but however great the authority of the husband may be, what sense is there for him to be allowed to kill his wife?”" -- good question and implying that it was in fact legal

late 1500s ". He is allowed to kill a wife or serf for disciplinary purposes. ... . It is not against the law for a husband to kill his wife"

[nalaa]

Oh and if you're gonna reply DO comment on my other points as well

[Careless_Whisper]

That's why I made it clear it all depends what time in history you cherry pick. Men could be imprisoned if they did not provide for their wife and children, even if the wife was a whore. Men were the ones mostly dying to protect women by working dangerous jobs and defending women. All you have done is cherry pick a specific time period, but like I said, things changed over the centuries. Sometimes women had it harder, other times men had it harder. But the idea that it's women who have been the oppressed gender is hogwash.

[nalaa]

Of course things change overtime but I'm not nitpicking, this is a law that existed consistently over millennial. How often it was used, I don't know but it DID exists consistently until a few centuries ago, when it became less consistent but still exsistant

Actually as I just told, if his wife was whore he could kill her. At the very least it was always grounds for divorce

"Men were the ones mostly dying to protect women by working dangerous jobs" actually until the industrial revolution the only dangerous job men had privilege on was soldiers. All other jobs weren't particularly dangerous or worked by women as well. A lot of those dangerous jobs, such as mining or building the pyramids were actually done by slaves or prisoners, men and women alike.

And you know, men always mention war a lot as the one thing where men are it a disadvantage. And I agree, that is the one thing where you are but you know what in the past decade more women have been killed precisely

[nalaa]

for being women, than men have died in all battles of the 20th centuries. So I don't see how that war argument makes sense

[nalaa]

*50 years not 10 years

[Careless_Whisper]

Well you are dead wrong. A husband couldn't just kill his wife and get away with it. He would have been done for murder.

[nalaa]

actually even by todays law, it's not always murder. Killing your wife when you find her cheating could manslaughter if you do it right there.
And I wasn't expecting you to widen your extremely selective view of history, but I've given you a few sources that do support my point. And laws like that aren't exactly relative

[Careless_Whisper]

Oh really. Okay then. Did you know that wives can murder their husbands and call it self defense to avoid jail?

[mistixs]

No, women have been given death penalty for murddering in self defense

[nalaa]

@mistixs that's what I thought, just less than a year ago there was this story about a woman in Saudi Arabia/Iran/Iraq (something like that) who killed the man who was trying to rape her in self defense but was executed for it.
I don't know what he is suggesting that self defense shouldn't exist as law? Because self defense does NOT mean you can murder someone and get away with.

But it's pointless trying to talk sense into him. He has an overly romanticized of the 50s and 60s along with the absurd notion that, that is how it's always been, everywhere

[Careless_Whisper]

@mistixs That's a lie.

[Careless_Whisper]

Not true at all. Pay attention to what was actually said.

[Panay]

I agree with all your points, but it was never legal in the uk to kill your wife. Although marital rape was legal, which is still disgusting

[nalaa]

@Panay if you'll look at the comments I think I posted a link or two showing the opposite

[Panay]

there's nothing stating it was ever legal in the uk. I've also searched briefly to check I wasn't mistaken, and I couldn't find anything saying it was legal...

[nalaa]

@Panay well I wasn't limiting my answer to one country, just as the question wasn't limited to one country. It was legal in some western countries. I'm not sure about the UK specificlally. It's not easy research old laws as well because not too long ago the UK was three different kingdoms with different laws. So you have to look into all of those
And even in those in which was technically a crime, men could almost always get away with it.

www.historylearningsite.co.uk/.../
" A peer could have his adulterous wife burned at the stake if the king/queen agreed. A wife who killed her husband did not commit murder – she committed the far worse crime of petty treason. This also lead to her being burned at the stake. "

www.jstor.org/.../1106112
this link points out the law under roman, which I think would include the UK.

Some famous example of women who died at the hands of their husband would be anne bolyn and cathrine howard. Both executed for adultery.

[nalaa]

This is a very common attiude throughout history, that it's ok for a men to kill their wives if they're cheating.
That;s really just an excuse for murder

[Panay]

Just reread your original comment... I SWEAR you said uk... nvm I must've misread it

[hellionthesage]

Actually while domestic violence was considered a personal issue, since historicly as long as it did not affect the public nobody card (hence men dying in duels and such as it was perfectly exceptable to kill a man if they agreed to the fight as it did not impact the society at large) men did not have the right to abuse women. They had the right to reprimand their wives however this is because legally a man was held responsible for his wifes actions and like a child, if he was not given any recourse to reign in her behavior he it would be unfair for him to be punished for something he could not control (technicly it was still unfair but slightly less so) the interesting part is that men who where abused by their wives where actually punished. To reitterate, a man who was beaten by his wife was then also punished by the society. It was called riding the donkey backwards in france. As for voting, their where a couple of groups, mainly those who dealt with alcohol (since most suffragettes where also part of the temperance movement which would put a lot of people out of business) who where against the female vote however no one was against it more then woman: www.nebraskastudies.org/.../0701_0112.html
They where afraid that it would cost them their special privledges. See what is never mentioned is that men also did not have the right to vote, not until 1852, less then 70 years before women, less then one generation. The reason they finally managed to gain the right? They where legally required to abide by conscription, that is the government could would and did force them to perform dangerous tasks against their will, unlike women, such as posses and restraint of criminals for the police, bucket brigades to deal with fire and the most famous military conscription. Women where against womens right to vote because they where afraid that it would cost them the same thing it costed men, their physical well being and potentially their lives. This of course was not the case and the moment enough women decided they wanted to vote ie the majority, it was granted to them without any of the conditions the ability to vote required of men.

[Maryjanedoe]

I'm not even sure i'm not even sure how to go how about approaching the many I don't know if they're intentionally stupid or just because the writer is ill informed, ideas put forth by this misogynist pig. To assume that jobs were dangerous, and that women wanted to be in the kitchen is disgusting. There still count less dangerous jobs and women working basically every single field of them. You were not protecting us you were protecting your property because that is all we were considered to be. To think that men die for us is absurd. Men die for their own inability to have a rational conversation because they are basically animals. I don't remember asking a man to jump to my defense that's his problem I am going to care of myself I don't need your help. I love men were such great defenders of feminine virtue, explain to me why three women in a day or killed by their male partners. Or why it is that between the years of 2001 and 2012 more women were murdered by their male partners that were killed in the 9/11 attacks Afghanistan and Iraq combat. If women are not oppressed, why don't I make as much money as my male counterpart when I do the same job have a better education and a better employee? If we are not oppressed and why is it that when a man rapes as we are the ones put on trial? In the voting thing that is so fucking stupid I almost don't want to comment on it but it needs to be addressed. Look at the damage the distraction devastation that living in a world ruled by man has caused? And a brief 200 years this male ruled world has brought us to the edge of extinction. Don't tell me what we do with our emotions, considering the things we were denied access to merely for the fact that men can't control their dicks. you want to tell me when I can deal with my own body, you want to tell me where I can breast-feed, you want to tell me whether I should work or what I think or what I feel. Anytime you feel like putting your idiotic medieval ideals up to the test look me up. Intelligence strength and speed stamina any test you want I will crush You.

[Mustachekitteh]

That's true since during majority of history. men were the hunters basically and the women were gatherers.

On the voting thing everyone is stupid basically. I've read in a study that humans become more dumb when they are in a group. When they're more separated and a lone. They tend to be less dumb. :D So honestly they should only let educational smart people vote instead of brainless mouth breathers.

What I have read. Once christianity became a thing. That's when men started to treat women worse. Like with ancient Egyptians they actually treated their wives pretty good. Once they had a queen who had almost all the rights as the pharaoh. Same with the Vikings their women had a good amount of rights. Though they couldn't partake in any kind of fights that would end in death. So they would majority of the time would have the women doing drinking games. Angelo-saxon women had a lot of rights too. They could inherit land.

So any culture through out history that you think about women being oppressed. They tend to be of christian beliefs or anything that worshiped that kind of god.

[Mustachekitteh]

Though the pro to being more emotional. That causes your brain to remember things more that trigger your emotions. Which in that case women have better memory once something triggers it than men.
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../...d-emotional-images.html

[Careless_Whisper]

Well if I understand it correctly it was Jesus who believed that men and women are equal and the New Testament commands husbands to love and honor their wives, even to the point of death, so I think you're wrong in blaming Christianity. Maybe you're getting confused with Islam where women can get stoned to death for being raped, or where husbands are allowed to beat their wives.

[Mustachekitteh]

Doesn't mean humans will even listen to that. Then end up taking it all the wrong way and end up treating the women horrible.

Again look at all the civilizations that believes in christianity and end up treating women horrible. Then the civilizations that had a different religion and didn't treat them that bad.

[Mustachekitteh]

Look at the Romans. Plus Christianity religion came from a lot of others for idea. So a good bit of christianity is based on some ideas coming from Greek. Along with the fact that it basically copies Mithraism.

[Careless_Whisper]

Not true at all. Christianity helped to liberate women at a time when women's rights were few. I think you're getting mixed up with Islam that stones women to death and rapes women and where husbands are allowed to beat their wives.

[Mustachekitteh]

Adam and eve got kicked out of that garden because of eve who was a woman. That seems like a not to great start with saying women are temped on evil things.

[Mustachekitteh]

To me Islam is like directly not friendly towards women. Then christianity is more passive aggressive.

[Mustachekitteh]

No I mean christianity caused not good things towards women mentally.

[Careless_Whisper]

These are just blatant lies. There is nothing in the New Testament that harms women, which is why husbands are commanded to love and honor their wives, whereas in Islam husbands are allowed to beat their wives for disobedience. Not to mention women being stoned for adultery. And because of your lies and your liberal horse crap, you are now blocked. Sorry, but I just can't stand liars.

[mistixs]

Heyyy Opinion Owner.
I'm a neopagan and I agree that frequently throughout history there have been Christians who have demonized women.
However, so have people of basically all other religions.
Christianity began in Rome, and Rome was literally one of the most oppressive places to women ever, & Christianity indeed "helped to liberate women at a time when women's rights were few," as MyTake owner said. I read about it in my Western Civilizations textbook.
Like I said, Rome & Greece were 2 of the most oppressive societies to women, like, ever.

Anyway, to MyTake Owner: Yes, men have sacrificed their lives to protect females, but women have sacrificed their lives to give birth to males (and females).

[SIGguy]

You are completely hand waving her arguments, dude.

[YourFutureEx]

"If the roles were reversed, the feminists would be complaining how easy it was for men, staying at home in the kitchen while their wives went out doing all the hard, dangerous jobs."
ROFLMAO 😂 Awesome!

Take this filthy feminists
time.com/.../

www.wsj.com/.../SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472

webcache.googleusercontent.com/.../+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

money.cnn.com/.../

www.cbsnews.com/.../

[rescuemyheart]

I agree, sorry. Some things about being a girl in society SUCK. Like being sexually harassed, having to worry about being raped, not being taken seriously or offered the same opportunities.

But then guys are expected to hold in their emotions and he stoic, not cry, go to wars, support women.

It's a two edged sword. And it's changing. But really as a woman I have to wonder what have we accomplished? Our shit is still there... feminism just allowed us to start taking on the shit that was usually left to men. Now we get a double whammy.

I like the traditional system better in some ways. Men and women take care of each other in different ways. It fits.

[StickStickity13]

Men can get raped as well

[rescuemyheart]

@StickStickity13 come on now. I could get struck by lightening. Doesn't mean I have any reason to worry about it

[Careless_Whisper]

You completely missed the point of this MyTake, which is typical.

[rescuemyheart]

Honestly, your take was poorly thought out. I was stripping it down to brass tax. I agree with the premise if saying men have their shit, too

[Careless_Whisper]

You still missed the point

[Northeast106]

@rescuemyheart I can't believe he is actually attacking you for agreeing with the basic point of his mytake.

[tyber1]

Men are actually more likely to be raped than women if you include prisons.

[StickStickity13]

Women usually put themselves in position to get raped

[rescuemyheart]

@Northeast106 right?

[tyber1]

@StickStickity13 I can't agree with that, people I know who were raped were taken by surprise by friends they trusted.

[hellionthesage]

Statisticly men are as likely to be raped as women are: https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/
In fact men are actually far more likely to have to worry about violence both from men and women: www.saveservices.org/.../
nortonbooks.typepad.com/.../...a-crime-victim.html
Sexual harrassment is hard to determine since no one really takes men being sexually harrassed seriously enough to study it (we don't even take male rape or abuse seriously enough) though I would imagine its higher with women, I would say men definitly experience it as well (a friend of mine was cornered and had his crotch grabbed several times by a drunken woman, which itself had happened on more then one occasion but since it was a woman it was viewed as harmless). The issue is male issues are ignored while female ones are over stated and subject to hyperbole.

[cth96190]

If a woman is worried about being raped, she should become a dedicated student of a martial art.
If anyone tried to rape just about any of the women or girls with whom I train at a karate dojo the would-be rapist would leave the scene in a body bag.

[tyber1]

I don't agree with your premise that women couldn't vote because they were emotional. Men only got the right to vote because they were historically cannon fodder, and as such they had a greater ability and motivation to demand power. The Magna Carta was signed because men revolted against their leaders. Men didn't get the right to vote because we were less emotional, we got the right to vote because we fought and threatened people with power for the right to influence politics and thus their own lives.

[Careless_Whisper]

I never said that. Please pay attention to what I actually said instead of misquoting me. Thanks

[tyber1]

"Maybe the reason women could not vote is because women tend to vote for the things that harm society. Women usually go by their emotions, and their emotions are often unstable and unpredictable." Did I misquote?

[Careless_Whisper]

Yes, sorry, I was getting mixed up with something else. But yes, I think in those days society understood that women are too emotional to make rational decisions.

[tyber1]

I don't think that was the case, men themselves didn't have the right to vote either for most of the same time and those in power were in power because men were the conquerors and the ones working outside the home. But even ancient societies in many cases acknowledged the legitimacy of the authority of women leaders. There have been many examples of female monarchs, scientists and business women even outside of the last 2 centuries and many of the societies that did condemn women did so mostly out of religious fervor.

[tyber1]

I'm pretty sure men gained rights before women simply because they were the ones who had the most to lose from bad political policies and since they were the fighters they were capable and motivated in fighting for the right to decide the outcome of their lives via politics.

[Almostragan]

Yes! Oh my goodness! I think I love you. I especially agree about the part about people generalizing the whole history of the world as one time period. I live in the Southern U. S. where women supposedly are so oppressed, and I think that we might have it better here than women in other states and Western countries. Women here generally, I think, are treated better than men. Little girls are treated better than little boys, especially by men. Men are still expected to respect women AS WOMEN and to protect us (while still letting us do whatever we want to). We pretty much have our cake and eat it, too. I would definitely trade the freedom to be a second-rate man (and a sex object) for the freedom to be a woman, treated specifically as a woman.

[zero444440000]

yeah generalizing in history "as well as looking att it form thor a totally bad or totally good lens" is a huge issue that needs to be talked about more.

[SakuraCherryBlossoms]

Lots of guys after divorce can't do whatever they want. Google some divorce and custody horror stories. And lots of guys who don't pay live in poverty. But they get thrown in jail anyway... And there are women having to pay child support for their exes just so the guys don't get locked up anymore. So I do think the divorce laws and systems could be way better.

But married guys? Especially back then, knowing his wife couldn't leave... I'm sure he did do whatever he wanted. Including cheating. Why wouldn't he have? She handles all the kids and house responsibilities... she was basically a mom for everyone. So why would the husband want to leave anyway?

[Careless_Whisper]

Okay, let me refute this common myth. You believe men in those days were well known for cheating on their wives. Well guess what, in those days it was commonplace for people to marry at a very young age. It was common for men and women to be married at age 18-20. So if husbands were cheating on their wives, then that means that wives must have also been cheating on their husbands. It takes two. If husbands were cheating on their wives, then wives must have been cheating on their husbands, because most people got married at a young age. So if you're going to accuse husbands of cheating, then you have to include wives as well.

[SakuraCherryBlossoms]

Well sure, both cheat now. But back then, I don't think so. Women were faced with being homeless if they did right?

[SakuraCherryBlossoms]

And if the women stayed home and everyone in the community knew them really well, how would they cheat without being trash talked? But the husbands went out to work wherever, so... they at least had more opportunities right?

[Careless_Whisper]

You completely ignored what I said. Let me try again. In those days it was commonplace for men and women to be married at a very young age. Therefore, if the men were cheating on their wives, then women must have also been cheating on their husbands, because it takes two. If people in those days were married at a young age, then if men were having sex with other women behind their wives back, then women must have been having sex with other men behind their husbands back. Do you understand now? And no, a husband couldn't just leave his ex wife destitute. This is another feminist myth. A husband still had to make sure that his divorced wife and children had shelter. He couldn't just divorce her and leave her to starve to death on the streets. But like I said, if men were cheating on their wives then women were also cheating on their husbands, because most people were married at a very young age.

[SakuraCherryBlossoms]

Oh, I get it now. You're saying the husbands would only have been able to cheat with married women, since almost everyone was married. That does make sense...

But I just googled and it says that the median marriage ages for back then were actually early 20s...

[Anonymous]

This is what that coal miner's wife looked like, brother:

s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/.../...7539e4d080.jpg

She'd have been chopping wood, hoeing fields, dragging pounds of wet laundry around, killing chickens, etc. You can't compare an upper class woman with a poor one to make a valid point.

The jobs at home were hard and unpleasant too for the poor. The problem with old gender roles wasn't that all men were bad it was that if the woman WAS with a horrible man (or he was injured or sick or dead) she had few means to feed herself and her family. This happened to my own grandmother - who got pregnant and married at 15 and had 6 kids by 23. My grandpa was an abusive drunk, but she had no resources to get gainful employment. When he left her to be with another girl he got pregnant, they were literally starving.

[Opinion Owner]

This is what most of life looked like... Not a 50s rich housewife:

ametia.files.Wordpress.com/.../sharecroppers.jpg

2.bp.blogspot.com/.../mill-girls-addie-card.jpg

upload.wikimedia.org/.../Childlabourcoal.jpg

s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/.../...947c7f5d1f.jpg

[Careless_Whisper]

So would women have been happier doing the same hard dangerous physical jobs that men had to do?

[Opinion Owner]

Most people were doing hard physical jobs... When the economy started changing, women had the right to be applicants for the opportunities that were opening up.

[Careless_Whisper]

But working hard around the house isn't quite the same thing as working down the mines 12 hours a day or some other dangerous jobs. Very few women die in dangerous jobs compared to how many men die.

[Opinion Owner]

Poor women weren't just baking and dusting. Many worked in the fields, in dangerous mills, etc. Children too. Mere "household work" was physically demanding pre-appliances. That doesn't negate the toil of men. Women were also dying frequently in childbirth and kids didn't always survive. Life was hard, period.

Then, technological advancements made more and more opportunities for work that required more brainpower than brute force.

[Opinion Owner]

Even among prehistoric humans, there is much evidence that women and children foragers/planters/fishers contributed more of the daily food/calories than male hunters - but then men provided valuable protein with animal meat. My point is that through most of history and most social systems, EVERYONE worked. So as new opportunities arise, everyone should have access to them.

[Careless_Whisper]

But it was mostly men for the last few thousand years that did most of the hard dangerous jobs, which is why more women stayed at home while the men went out.

[Opinion Owner]

Giving opportunities to both men and women to succeed doesn't negate either's hard work.

[Careless_Whisper]

what has that got to do with what I just said?

[Opinion Owner]

The women's movement started in response to the "system" not adapting as fast as reality. You see something similar happening with father's rights groups now. Guys are taking care of kids more and more and most always have been invested in their children's' lives - laws should reflect that.

[Careless_Whisper]

Again, what has that got to do with the point I made?

[Walls_and_Doors]

Oppression is not really a giver of a shit. How this works in the real world:

Women are told they cannot have any opportunities. Poor men are given shitty opportunities. Children lose their hands in looms. Canaries die.

Oppressed parties:

Women, because they don't get any opportunities.
Poor men, because they are poor and get shit opportunities.
Children, because hands are handy.

Most of all: Canaries. What the fuck? Why would you want to be the one who has to suffocate to save the lives of your idiot overseers who can't figure out how oxygen works?

So the moral of the story is "shut up".

[Panay]

A moment's silence please, for all the valiant canaries who lost their lives... :'(

[Winesteed]

... are you fucking kidding me? Really?

Is your next take going to be about how black people shouldn't have been given the right to vote because they are "unstable and unpredictable" too?

And what mainstream media are you actually listening to that is giving more than a token nod to issues that face women? Are you trolling or are you serious? Please, for the love of all things holy, please be trolling.

[Careless_Whisper]

Are you seriously trying to argue that women are emotionally stable?

[Winesteed]

Human beings are emotionally unstable. If we had sentient toasters, they would probably be emotionally unstable too.

[Careless_Whisper]

But women are far more emotionally unstable, which is why they often cry over minor things. And have you paid attention to a woman shopping? It's a nightmare. They are driven by emotions a lot more than men.

[Winesteed]

What is your standard for comparison, though? Have you been shopping with more than two hundred men? Have you interacted, on a regular basis, with more than two hundred women?

A "minor thing" is also an incredibly subjective term. Until you can legitimately quantify emotional sensitivity and, in your words, instability while also having a good standard for what is considered typical behavior? Totes not a good standard of measurement.

Also, is crying actually a good measure of the severity of an emotional reaction? What about instances of dissociation? If we're going solely on stereotypes, when men are confronted with emotionally distressing situations they either become angry (and potentially violent) or "shut down" and don't process anything (which is unhealthy as fuck.)

Since we don't live in a world of stereotypes, and not ALL men break things when they're upset and not ALL women sob when they are upset, I don't think you've got a good measure of comparison here Holmes

[Panay]

I don't think you have many female friends... Yeah sure most (<key word there) women are more emotionally impacted by things than men, but that doesn't make the 'emotionally unstable'!
Firstly, as I said, it's not all women. From my experiences I'd say around 2/3.
Secondly, even that 2/3 don't just have breakdown whenever somethign goes wrong; maybe they get slightly more upset, or perhaps cry about, but that's fine! It doesn't affect their judgement or anything

[Anonymous]

You got some good arguments and I agree with 90% of it. However you could have strengthened your take with citing sources.

Truth is I think their is some good news for men. Feminism is starting to be noticed for the load of hateful, emotional BS it is. Intelligent women are realizing that this "role reversal" bs is creating a whole generation of passive, pleasing wimpy guys that 99.99% of women don't want to sleep with or even respect. Every social experiment has side effects... and just because it's an "experiment" doesn't mean it's a good idea.

I know lots of women who intensely dislike Hillary Clinton. They aren't voting for her just because she is a woman. The the "gender card" is not working as well the "race card" worked for Obama.

I could go on for days about this. However for every action their consequences.

[Careless_Whisper]

well said

[Anonymous]

women actually have been oppressed for thousands of years but that doesn't really have to do with modern feminism

rape is very common through hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution

the cartoons of cave men with clubs knocking women out and dragging to their caves is very real it signifies forced rape by men on women which as i just said has been VERY common

[Careless_Whisper]

If women have been oppressed then so have men. But female oppression is a myth for the reasons I have explained.

[Opinion Owner]

was only replying to the first sentence or something but yes ur right

female oppression isn't a complete myth tho

[LittleFinch]

I like this myTake. Thanks for being honest. I'm actually sick and tired of the continuous "oh women are always oppressed sexist society" BS I hear about constantly today. Nice to see someone who doesn't buy into all of this nonsense.

[Careless_Whisper]

Thanks

[zero444440000]

am tired of that and all morden women acting like women of the past were weak and fragile. a view i don't evan wanna begin to tell how much it disrespects and looks down on women of the past who worked hard to insure there childern and Family would get to live to see adulthood.

[aliceinwonderland69]

Until recent times, and still in many countries today, women were/are considered to be, and treat as male, property.

[Careless_Whisper]

Property that many men died to protect and care for.

[MasterofPlebs]

Yeah? So what? Men die to protect their worthless houses and fields. Meninists don't care about women. Quit pretending.

[heavensgift2girls]

There have been many different societies with many different outlooks on how the women were treated. The problem is you only hear about the examples that suit the political needs of modern feminists. You would be surprised at the freedoms many women had that you just don't hear about. Acting like women have always been considered property until recently is a huge lie that feminists repeat over and over. They are picking and choosing the laws that didn't favor women, while ignoring the real reasons behind those laws, or the laws that hurt men throughout history.

Men were legally responsible for women in many countries. This was a form of security the women wanted. You can't very well be responsible for someone you don't have any control over. In some societies the husband could even go to jail if his wife broke the law. Therefore the societies with the most rules forcing men to take care of women evolved to allow women fewer rights so men could do their job.

[MasterofPlebs]

@heavensgift2girls In Islamic fundamentalist society, men ate guardians of women, but they're also easily disposible property. Those are not mutually exclusive propositions.

[heavensgift2girls]

@MasterofPlebs Women are not easily disposable in Islamic countries. That is just a lie that gets tossed around to spread hate for another culture. Over there the man is required by law to provide for her. There are ways to legally end his responsibility, but it is taken very seriously. It isn't like men can just walk away from his responsibilities once he gets bored of her as you are suggesting.

I never said they are mutually exclusive proposition. In many ways it is like the relationship between an adult and child. The adult has power, but the adult also has responsibility over the child, while the child has no such obligation. I understand if people don't agree with that type of division in power and responsibility, but my point is that this is a far more complex issue than feminists try to make it out to be. A law that at one point is meant to protect women, can sometimes back fire when things go bad, and things are not going well in those countries right now.

[MasterofPlebs]

@heavensgift2girls It's NOT a lie. I know Arabic, I don;'t hate Islamic culture I just hate human culture. Difference.

[cth96190]

The so-called pay gap is a lie, crafted by feminists in their attempt to continue their victim narrative.
Here is a detailed presentation on that subject and the myth of female oppression in general.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oqyrflOQFc

[lolapop123]

I laughed out loud reading this. This may be the funniest thing I have read all week! You are so wrong. You're using women shopping as an example of their emotional instability? I've seen guys cry over Black Ops!! There is no proof that women are more emotional than men, your only argument is that they often express it more. Well, the stereotype that men have to be tough and provide for the family is a stigma imposed on men BY MEN. You are ridiculous.

[Careless_Whisper]

Saying that there's no evidence that women are more emotional than men is just as stupid and dishonest as saying that there's no evidence that men are physically stronger than women. It's common knowledge that women are more emotional than men. A tiny minority of weak men might cry over silly things, but in general women will cry and get emotional a lot more than men. Women are driven by their emotions, which often change. Women are very bad at making logical decisions.

[mistixs]

You realize the corresponding stereotype is that men "think with their dicks," right? I'd rather have an emotional person making decisions than someone who is controlled by their genitals.

[Careless_Whisper]

@mistixs Women are controlled by stupidity

[John_Doesnt]

We both have our advantages and disadvantages in life. But that being said let's watch some virtual women being sexually objectified for our entertainment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCsn8QaiUzA

[zero444440000]

good thing i don't believe that women showing skin is sexually objectified then. would make me look very sixist to think that women become objects just because they happen to not be covering themselves up.

[zero444440000]

i agree with everything but the last part. the reason "from what i understand" for why women didn't vote is because if they did they would also have to be drafted into the army, something only men hade to do "in the usa attleast" because they hade the right to vote.