For the large portion of human history, even today in many countries, women have had limited rights and have been subservient to men. Why?

Question

Did we suddenly get smarter today? No, I don’t think we did. Why did we get MORE progressive in regards to women’s treatment & rights? Because for a long time, this wasn’t the case.

Why has history been more cruel to women in this respect? Today, especially in the US, treatment of women, their rights and opportunities, is as progressive as any place on earth. Nonetheless, this is a rather RECENT phenomenon that hasn’t characterized the centuries of human history where this wasn’t the case for women.

•Women were EFFECTIVELY seen as men’s properties despite not having specific laws around this.

•Women had limited to no rights in almost all places for a long time on earth.

•Certain crimes, a woman was punished in a more disproportionate way as opposed to men. Ex: Crimes of a sexual nature.

hellionthesagereborn · Accepted Answer

No they have not. This can only be seen as the case if you decide to ignore all the benefits women had and all the considerbally greater responsibilities men had i. e. if you edit history to the point where it is no longer a reflection of reality but rather this frankenstein creature.

If women where property, why was it that only men where enslaved by the state for war, for bucket bridages and things of that nature? If women where property why was a woman legally allowed to divorce a man who could not provide for her or was abusive to her resulting in him having to pay her for the rest of her life or his? If she was just property why was it that in many places a man was legally obligated to carry the burden of her debt i. e. if she incurred a debt he would be thrown in prison for it?

As for claims of women being punished for sexual crimes, that is entirely false. In fact its not only incorrect but the exact opposite of reality. If a woman cheated, their was a sever punishment for that and that was because the mans entire existence revolved around providing and protecting her and the only thing he got out of that was exclusivity to reproduction. By her cheating, she destroyed any notion of certainty about his paternity to his children that he also slaved away for. So historically it was women who where the biggest enforcers of this because it was they who would suffer the most if women got away with cheating (as they do now).

Other then that, they would never be punished as legally women where not recognized as being capable of rape (even though statistics currently show they are as likely to rape as men), if she had sex out of wedlock at least in later parts of history not only was she not punished, but if she cheated on her husband the only thing the husband could do was divorce her and sue the MAN for what she did for lost wages and time he spent caring for and providing for her during the duration of her infidelity. If she was not married and had sex out of wedlock she could simply claim that she thought the man would marry her and thus she was the victim resulting in the man going to prison for two years or more and nothing happening to her.

As for their limits rights, that is also completely inaccurate. Women did not have the same rights as men when MARRIED. The reason was that because in marriage she gave up her autonomy for security i. e. she could not be held accountable for anything only her husband could and thus the husband in order to balance out his greater responsibilities needed to have greater authority and rights in order to fullfill those responsibilities. She could not own her land when married because HE had to take care of it, HE had to pay the taxes on it and if HE could not, HE would be thrown in prison for it not her. Allowing her to have the authority and none of the responsibilities (which is what women have now) would result in such disfunction that no man would ever agree to getting married because its nothing but suffering for him with no benefit and nothing but benefits for her with no sacrifice on her part for any one else (which is why currently we are seeing fewer men marry, more hookup culture and more disfunction).

So that is why this happened and why we claim that women where treated as property, because people with an agenda have ignored more then half of the history to suit their agenda.

ThisDudeHere · Accepted Answer

"Why did we get MORE progressive in regards to women’s treatment & rights?" More is subjective. Look at what happens in every nation that gives women unlimited rights - birth rates go down, more children are born out of wedlock, the nuclear family disintegrates and women vote for more nanny-state policies which, while pleasant when times are good, are absolute shit when times are bad, which they are slowly becoming again, if not already have been. "Why has history been more cruel to women in this respect?" Dude, no offense but you have to be kidding? You mean you wouldn't choose involuntary work at home, just cleaning, cooking and raising children against involuntary work in grueling conditions in the field or, later, in factories and forces service in the military where you either died of desease or by being killed by some other bloke who didn't want to do it but was forced to just like you? Shit, I think sweeping the floor sounds good in that case. "Nonetheless, this is a rather RECENT phenomenon that hasn’t characterized the centuries of human history where this wasn’t the case for women." The same for men. Men - and I mean average non-land-owning-nobility-men - got their right to vote, on average, just a meager generation or two before women did. They didn't have it for basically just as long as women didn't. "Women were EFFECTIVELY seen as men’s properties despite not having specific laws around this.'' And men were seen the property of their lord. So? "Women had limited to no rights in almost all places for a long time on earth." See two paragraphs above. "Certain crimes, a woman was punished in a more disproportionate way as opposed to men. Ex: Crimes of a sexual nature." This is more of a region-speciffic thing because more often than not, men were punished for bot their own crimes and for the crimes of their female companions. While yes, this made it clear that women are a separate class that holds no accountability and is thus less than a person in a way, but at the same way, what benefit was it for the man to be punished for the crimes of his woman? My own end conclusion is that both men and women suffered throughout history, but just in different ways. Not even in polar opposite ways, just different.

Mia-Wallace · Accepted Answer

No, for most of human history most humans regardless of their gender had no "rights" whatsoever. They were peasants, properties of their rulers living in a social hierarchy and the concept of "social mobility" did not exist.

Needless to say all people including the nobility were struggling to survive. Thriving was not always an option, let alone concepts like "freedom" and especially "equality".

That continued until the age of enlightenment and then industrialization. When our civilization "allowed" more people to survive and also thrive, they simply started to want more as individuals and communities.

Humans have a history of suffering and death and to make that about one gender is painfully stupid.

natured · Accepted Answer

Even to this day, once a woman expresses her thoughts, she gets attacked, G@G is a classic example, once you write something about WOMEN, we get attacked from very angry men telling us to SHUT UP... once you fight through a debate, they even end up calling you a whore...
So yea, it's sad that many Men didn't change at all.

OlderAndWiser · Answer

I think this aspect of our cultural evolution is solely a result of physical dominance and aggression being the basis of control.

MCheetah · Answer

I disagree with this general premise that "women were always oppressed." Not only is this not true, but it's actually the opposite.

I won't get into all the ways it's not cause I don't feel like typing a damn thesis today, so I'll keep it brief: Women are the ones who get pregnant, men cannot. If women get hurt or die, that means no children. No children means extinction.

People nowadays don't seem to realize we've only had the modern perks, safety, and longevity of life that we enjoy today for only about 60-70 years or so. And MOST of the actual world doesn't even have that, to be honest. Mainly just North America, Europe, Australia, South Korea, and Japan. Most of life was sh*tty up until about 1950 or so, in the West. Up until then, you had a very good chance of not living to see 50. The idea of "middle class" living also wasn't really a thing up until then, as well. So before that, every day was all about basic survival, having enough food, not getting a relatively-minor illness by today's standards and insta-dying. If all the men died (which was often the case), no big deal. Semen is cheap and plentiful. If all the women died, you're SOL. Say goodbye to your people.

So why are things more "progressive" nowadays? Because we're no longer worried about human survival. Pretty much EVERY country that becomes stabilized, has this happen. It happened in the US and Europe in the 50s and 60s. It happened in Japan in the 80s (roughly). It happened in South Korea in the 90s (roughly). It happens in every country that becomes a modernized nation and enters its post-industrial, commercial age. Simply, because "sexism isn't lucrative." Capitalism is a key driver in having "equal rights" in societies. Only a few are an exception (like the Saudi Arabia and the UAE; but they only have money purely due to oil; they aren't exactly a "modern" society, despite their oil money, but even there, they are starting to give women more rights and become slightly more civilized.)

So, to put things in a short version:

First comes human survival.
Then comes industrialization.
Then comes capitalism and commercialization.
Then comes human rights and equality.

This is also why stupid-ass, useless feminists never focus on women's rights in the third world, by the way. Feminism would be like putting an ineffective, sh*tty, store-brand Band-Aid on someone who's arm is halfway falling off. Feminism is a useless ideology and always has been. Especially when you look at countries where feminism has NEVER existed (like here in South Korea), yet women still aren't "treated like property" and are still frequently millionaires or in positions of power or running entire countries. (That is, when they aren't stealing millions of taxpayer money, like Geun-hye Park did; that bitch is basically doing life in prison right now, LOL!)

Lliam · Answer

I think there is only one reason for the dominance of men or women throughout history: Size and strength. What could women do about it, go all Sparticus?

I think the gradual attainment of rights by women, particularly in the West, can be compared to the success of the racial civil rights movement.

Segregation was the law in the U. S. for 100 years after slavery ended. It relegated blacks to subhuman status and encouraged racism. The average white person was blissfully ignorant of the plight of blacks. It didn't effect them. People just lived their lives.

But when the civil rights movement of the 1960s began, TV coverage exposed people all across the country to the reality of peaceful protestors being brutally attacked by police. News articles about bus strikes, marches, arrests, lynchings, bombings, etc. circulated. More literature on the subject became available. There were interviews with and speeches by civil rights leaders, capped off by Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech which talked about equality for ALL people.

Many fair minded white people who had previously been clueless, began to realize how unfairly blacks were being treated. They saw the ugliness of racism. Soon, public opinion swayed in favor of equality.

I think the same thing happened in regards to women's rights, even though that struggle was more incremental and didn't involve any mass spectacles of violence. But because women DID speak out, and displayed rebelliousness and asserted themselves in other ways, people gradually became more and more aware of the systemic and legal oppression of women. Again, I think the majority of people are fair minded and will take the side of justice when they become aware of injustice.

In the U. S. there are also high minded principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence that talk about natural, self evident, unalienable rights, endowed by the Creator (not by government). And the Bill of Rights gives legal protection for speaking out, gathering peacefully, and petitioning the government for redress of grievances.

Even though many of the principles in our founding documents were conveniently ignored and never fully realized, they represented something to work toward. That work took blood and sacrifice because those in power never relinquish it willingly. But sometimes justice prevails and progress is made.

MrOracle · Answer

Even though many women were stronger and sturdier then compared to what is typical now, very few women were strong enough to build shelters, plow fields, slaughter large animals, or defend their homes and property against criminals. In 1900, women outside of maybe 10 large cities more-or-less couldn't survive without a man to protect her and do the hard, physical labor that she couldn't. There were no machines to make things easy - no Doordash or Amazon Prime or Uber - so single women who didn't live at home with her parents would be forced to live in a city that had a police department (which is a fairly recent invention - 1838 in Boston and 1845 in NYC) in order to be safe and to be able to get a job that would allow her to survive on her own. Even then, most single women would have rented a room from another family, so as not to be alone.

It's really only post-WWII that the (western) world was safe enough and advanced enough - due to capitalism and a constitutional republic with a Bill of Rights - that women could survive in large numbers on their own. Capitalism has ensured that women can hire men, via a robust service industry, to do tasks around the house that she can't or chooses not to do, from gardening to trades work (plumbing & electrical) to pest control and mechanic work, so it was less vital that she had a man at home. And conveniences like clothes washing machines, dish washers, vacuums, etc. have allowed what used to take 5-6 hours of hard work to be done in 2 hours and with much less effort.

The irony is that many are now pushing for socialism, not realizing that socialists tend to deliver TRUE equality. Women, just like men, get assigned to jobs like mining, construction, factory work/manufacturing, and trades. They also "get" to serve in the military, whether they like it or not.

ChrisMaster69 · Answer

Humans as a thing, are basically realising certain things are just wrong.

for example, not allowing women to vote.
Not allowing women to drive (Saudi)
that rape in a marriage was not a crime…
that being able to make very sexual comments to a female in the work place was actually wrong.

my basic thing is, as a father I want my daughter to have as much freedom and ability to realise her dreams as I do. I am and she is a realist, so yeah certain things will not happen, however the rest should be achievable for a person irrespective of gender, sexuality or ethnicity.

As let’s not forget the Ethnic side of all this, as while things have been a ‘pain’ for white women, for certain ethnic backgrounds in certain countries, it’s been a nightmare.

what is wrong with everyone being given an equal voice on this planet, coupled with equal chances to live a life to its fullest?

rcljr · Answer

I would have to say it has to do with materialism, motherhood, mating and the fact that women carry the child and need sheltered and protected, after mating the guy just smokes a cigarette and takes a nap, also protecting women from rape by rival tribes. I think the whole mess morphed from there. I love women, I really do, but the whole femiNazi thing in the US has men reevaluating love, marriage, family, commitment, I think at this point most men would just rather pay a hooker than deal with feminist attitude.

MrMilti · Answer

In the past, rights always came with obligations.

If you wanted to vote, you had to sign up for the firefighters, or community service or the draft.
Then came the suffragetes and demanded rights, without those obligations and got it in the end, which no one expected to happen.

grega239 · Answer

They werent subservient. Being home was their role in life like provision and protection was the role of men.

History was worse for men. Wars werent fought by women. And since men did the hunting they also got killed by whatever animal they were hunting.

Women had fewer rights because they had fewer obligations.

Ellie-V · Answer

Because men hate women and love vagina at the same time

alice55 · Answer

I guess it's because they're physically weaker so they had no choice but to listen.

monkeynutts · Answer

Most men can’t treat women with disrespect and be ok with it, society throughout history has been run often by autocratic

KrakenAttackin · Answer

Because people realized the true nature of women and realized they needed to be controlled. In the west women run wild and you see what chaos we have?

anylolone · Answer

Because they haven't.

OddBeMe · Answer

Like…poc?

For the large portion of human history, even today in many countries, women have had limited rights and have been subservient to men. Why?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

For the large portion of human history, even today in many countries, women have had limited rights and have been subservient to men. Why?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.