Have women been oppressed throughout history, and why or why not?

Have women been oppressed throughout history, and why or why not?

Other urls found in this thread:

c2cjournal.ca/2016/12/were-teaching-university-students-lies-an-interview-with-dr-jordan-peterson/
singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

women like her need to be sent to the camps ASAP

Of course they have, anyone who denies it is a retard. But that ended about 60 years ago

The camp where I fuck them?

It depends what you mean by oppressed.

In the general sense, yes. Most societies did not let women have the same rights as men.

If you mean oppressed by "their lives were worse than male lives" then that's a much longer and more complicated question.

I'm starting to believe that oppression of women came about as a result of natural cycles in society, where women were slowly given more freedom but ultimately wound up destroying those societies because they're incompetent fuck-ups, ending up with women being beaten & oppressed intentionally, until the cycle started again.

Get your dicks ready, because a rape war is coming.

proof that women were oppressed before 60 years ago?

Women won't exist in the next three generations

> Most societies did not let women have the same rights as men.

Do they or did they deserve the same rights as men?

Define oppressed.
Also, not an argument.

c2cjournal.ca/2016/12/were-teaching-university-students-lies-an-interview-with-dr-jordan-peterson/

>but ultimately wound up destroying those societies because they're incompetent fuck-ups
Name one society before the modern era where this occurred.

>deserve
If you're going to separate "men and women" into deserve and not deserve, then you should further separate "deserve" into other attributes like intelligence, occupation, etc.

Wait, first I want YOUR definition of what is solid proof. And don't say peer reviewed journal.

women USED to be oppressed until 1919 anything past that date has generally been pro-women rather than pro-equality key difference

they have been, but not anymore

now feminism is about complaining about made up things such as "manspreading", "mansplaining" and trying to force diversity wherever they see to many men

When women say "oppressed" they mean "I can't do anything I want whenever I want."

No.

Yes, but they deserve it.

Name one thing women have done that is worse than what men have done.

>They could only hold 2nd hand jobs
>they did in fact got paid less
>they were literally treated as property
>in some parts of the world they needed a man's permission to do most shit
>could not hold properties
>absolutely powerless in society with very few exceptions

You're a retard if you deny that women did in fact had it pretty rough before the CRM

Feminism.

Think of the bloodiest wars throughout history
Think of the troubles that befell many men
Think about hard years of labor that many men put in
Now get this, women didn't have to put up with any of it

If people invaded your country, your women simply opened their legs for their new rulers (Given they were not Christian types who killed non-virgin women).
When times got hard, women simply relied on a man to provide
When the men were in the mines and factories, women were at home
When the World Wars were raging, women stayed at home doing small support jobs

Weren't women held in very high regard during ancient Egyptian times or Roman times?

So a few tumblr posts is worse than the shit men have collectively done throughout history?

Can you fucking read a thread before you post in it? Your whole post has already been explained, you fucking idiot.

Yeah, but nowhere near to the extent that moronic feminists believe.

Its an old Jew trick.

Literally the oldest trick in the book.

Introduce false ideas of oppression in the minds of women and they will ruin it for everyone.

Adam and Eve.

"Oppression" is a meaningless buzzword now. Women have been constrained for all of recorded history, because civilization exists to control women. Civilization cannot exist without the family unit, and without "patriarchy" women will not maintain families. Women will naturally trend towards endless hypergamy without social controls, resulting in a primitive society of constant upheaval.

...

>Women will naturally trend towards endless hypergamy without social controls, resulting in a primitive society of constant upheaval
Other way round, moshe. Men will naturally lead towards polygamy.

ride on the coattails fn men as men went to war to die, meanwhile gave out white feathers to men who didn't want to die.

>If people invaded your country, your women simply opened their legs for their new rulers

>what are rapists
>What are rapists-murderers
>implying they have to like getting fucked by a total stranger

>When times got hard, women simply relied on a man to provide

And if that man died, the woman was basically doomed because she was not allowed to do anything by herself.

>When the men were in the mines and factories, women were at home

most likely not because they wanted to, society itself in its oppressive state back then just stopped them from doing so. Do you think that a woman enjoyed being super poor and probably getting leftovers for food because her husband didnt ear enough money to provide for the entire family? Dont you fucking think she would have wanted to earn cash for herself?

>When the World Wars were raging, women stayed at home doing small support jobs

Lot of women fought in the war for resistance movements and such though

>And don't say peer reviewed journal.
>implying im a shitlib

post it senpai lemme see

Yes because it's the only way to have a functional society.

If women were oppressed, they wouldn't be able and share their half naked pictures online.

And for the record;

In western society, women were never oppressed. They were just overly protected because of many factors that were relevant in the past; like sickness etc etc. Losing just one woman would have been a tragedy.

I'd rather say that females were and will somehow always be privileged among the humans.

You can ask any person, which side they would want to take. Pretty sure 99% would go with the female.

>ride on the coattails fn men as men went to war to die
Which is exactly what men do all the time, even in this very thread. "Hurr males (read: my ancestors, not me) went to war and invented shit, so because I'm also a male, I deserve credit for it."
>meanwhile gave out white feathers to men who didn't want to die.
This was pretty bad, but men have done way worse.

Just name the type of proof you want. I'm waiting.

So brave and innocent. Give me a fucking break, hypocrite.

> Dont you fucking think she would have wanted to earn cash for herself?

You're projecting a very modernist view onto all of history

Yes, but only because I've used my time machine to exclusively go throughout history making sure they got oppressed.

i want to be her boobs

You're a retard if you think PEOPLE had it easy until recently. Looking at history and holding it that Men were the oppressors of women is a total joke. It's just garbage Marxist theory applied to the sexes. Everyone had rough lives for millennia until we industrialized to the point we are at now with poverty being wiped out. Women where less frequent in governance but there were still Queens here and there. That is more an issue of class. Because more men were rules ALL men are oppressors? Women didn't become more equal because we finally woke up at how evil we are they became more equal because of more available birth control/the pill.

...

Uh, maybe your women were/couldn't/whatever, but it really depends on where and when you're talking about.

And what the fuck is a 2nd hand job?

I think it's pretty safe to assume that nobody ever liked to have their survival rely 100% on someone else

53 to be exact. In USA anyway.

you mean humiliating people to throw their life away in the somme wasn't that bad, fuck off. Perhaps they were lucky breathing in chlorine or mustard gas.

"Rights" were that which you were given to achieve your RESPONSIBILITIES in society and the natural order.

Women were not oppressed because they could not do a thing because the duty which included that thing was not allotted to them in the first place.

If your role in society is birthing and raising children and you are physically incapable of defending clay you do not need a right to join the military, for instance.

>They could only hold 2nd hand jobs
define second hand job
>they did in fact got paid less
why
>they were literally treated as property
proof?
>in some parts of the world they needed a man's permission to do most shit
and a man doesn't need his wife's permission to do shit?
>could not hold properties
That's flat out false. Women have always been able to own property, even in the middle east
>absolutely powerless in society with very few exceptions
powerless in what way?

>wasn't that bad
Hahahahaha kill yourself for your lack of reading comprehension. I DID say it was that bad.

The average modern American woman is so narcissistic and vain they rival fictional characters of classical literature

As a woman what freedom means to her, and you're nearly always gonna get the same answer: safety and freedom from consequence. Safety to do this, safety to do that, being able to whatever you want without any care for consequences. Women want to be kept safe by strong men, and if men can't keep them safe, they turn to the government do implement as many policies as they can to free them from any sort of personal responsibility and shift it back onto men/society at large.

To answer the question: yes, women were "oppressed", but it was more like they were restrained.

I'm not saying that men's life was extremely merry.

I'm saying that women were literally fucking oppressed because they could not do something as simple as holding a property or working in whatever they wanted to.

Dont fucking bring up queens (which I brought myself) because those were like an exception to the rule, youre not going to say that women were not oppressed because some kingdoms were ruled by queens.

Like you cannot fucking debate that women did in fact had much less opportunities before civil rights

Hypergamy and Polygamy are not the sane thing. Hypergamy is essentially 'trading up'. This is related to polygamy, however. Women will seek the highest status males exclusively, leading to the practice of polygamy and endless internecine war over reproduction. The basic family unit, enforced monogamy, etc. are social adaptations that control women's sexual behavior in order to produce a functioning and cohesive society.

My dick is opressed because i don't get to fuck girls like her.

Wtf howd you get those? She's so delusional but perfect

And I think it's safe to assume you've never ever seen a farm, which is where 95% of humanity lived and worked with approximately equal distribution of the labor up until probably 150 years ago.

Well, all advanced civilizations decayed at the same time they would adopt more liberal politics and stop restricting women sexualy. And thats the only kind of opresion there is or ever was. All acts of opresion done by men through the ages were always related to controlling womens sex life, and constructed societies based on how sex was regulated. And the only way to regulate sex is to put limits on females. For example, if a women works, that means she is out of the house for long periods of time, where she is going to spend time with other men and where you can never be 100% that she isn't fucking someone else.
Also, there has never been an advanced matriarcal civilization, only very simple ones.
And before you say anything, take into account that controling sex is so important, that not a single comunity on the planet has ever grow without controling sexual behavior.
Now, you can say that this is inmoral. And it's true, it is inmoral. But I prefer an inmoral society to small jungle communities any day of the weak.

>leading to the practice of polygamy
Uh, no. Polygamy is the BASE of male desire. Monogamy is the compromise.

Please learn to sociology.

But then again, arguing chicken V egg here won't do anybody any good. My only real proof of this is what I've seen in real life on a regular basis, which is that women prefer monogamy while men are the ones who want to sleep around a lot when they're younger.

No. Prior to modern times, most humans lived an agrarian lifestyle wherein they struggled for food.

If you were a man, you'd work the land for food for your family just like your father before you and his father before him. You didn't have any hopes of career advancement. You didn't have any retirement plan. You were never going to be anything but a dirt farmer.

If you were a woman, you would perform more domestic tasks such as cooking, cleaning and raising children. Like your husband you had no hope for a better life. The only difference was that you were assigned a a different role which was no more bleak than what men were doing.

Feminists arguing that women were oppressed will look to the ruling classes in which women were typically prevented from wielding the same bureaucratic power men did. This is the only case in which women were arguably oppressed: wealthy aristocratic females who still had more food, more treasures and more freedom than any man or woman in the lower classes.

I don't know why but I laughed so hard at this my nose bled a little bit and I felt like I was having a stroke.

This.

>As a woman what freedom means to her, and you're nearly always gonna get the same answer: safety and freedom from consequence

The perverse thing is this is what they had when they were "oppressed" and is basically the state of being "oppressed" isn't it?

eg. If you are not permitted to do a thing because society does not require you to do it: you are free from the consequences of fucking up doing the thing.

>Have women been oppressed throughout history, and why or why not?
No they've been fucking priviliged throughout history while men have been oppressed.

> "oppressed", but it was more like they were restrained.

Women weren't oppressed then, they were expected to do things like birth children and raise them, while men were expected to work and defend their country.

Not being oppressed then comes down to not being expected to do anything.

Look up dowries, moron

Yeah, and they were great as long as the women were made to stay home. After that they understood how fallible great empires could be.

Agreed, I'm feeling oppressed too right now

The if it was that BAD, your point is garbage. please, stfu with your tired first grade feminist bullshit.

Jesus Christ, what a fucking fag you are.

Still haven't defined "oppressed" and you ignored how my point about queens is that oppression is a CLASS issue. Women being oppressed came from the reapplication of marxist CLASS analysis onto social issues and I reject it. Women and men had different roles and responsibilities and when technology was advanced enough and the west was rich enough to make the roles more similar they were.

>I don’t think women were discriminated against, I think that’s an appalling argument. First of all, do you know how much money people lived on in 1885 in 2010 dollars? One dollar a day. The first thing we’ll establish is that life sucked for everyone. You didn’t live very long. If you were female you were pregnant almost all the time, and you were worn out and half dead by the time you were 45. Men worked under abysmal conditions that we can’t even imagine. When George Orwell wrote The Road to Wigan Pier, the coal miners he studied walked to work for two miles underground hunched over before they started their shift. Then they walked back. [Orwell] said he couldn’t walk 200 yards in one of those tunnels without cramping up so bad he couldn’t even stand up. Those guys were toothless by 25, and done by 45. Life before the 20th century for most people was brutal beyond comparison. The idea that women were an oppressed minority under those conditions is insane. People worked 16 hours a day hand to mouth. My grandmother was a farmer’s wife in Saskatchewan.

She showed me a picture of the firewood she chopped before winter. They lived in a log cabin that was not quite as big as the first floor of this house. And the woodpile that she chopped was three times as long, and just as high. And that’s what she did in her spare time because she was also cooking for a threshing crew, taking care of her four kids, working on other people’s farms as a maid, and taking care of the animals. Then in the 20th century, people got rich enough that some women were able to work outside the home. That started in the 1920s, and really accelerated up through World War II because women were pulled into factories while the men went off to war. The men fought, and died, and that’s pretty much the history of humanity. And then in the 50s, when Betty Friedan started to whine about the plight of women, it’s like, the soldiers came home from the war, everyone started a family, the women pulled in from the factories because they wanted to have kids, and that’s when they got all oppressed. There was no equality for women before the birth control pill. It’s completely insane to assume that anything like that could’ve possibly occurred. And the feminists think they produced a revolution in the 1960s that freed women. What freed women was the pill, and we’ll see how that works out. There’s some evidence that women on the pill don’t like masculine men because of changes in hormonal balance. You can test a woman’s preference in men. You can show them pictures of men and change the jaw width, and what you find is that women who aren’t on the pill like wide-jawed men when they’re ovulating, and they like narrow-jawed men when they’re not, and the narrow-jawed men are less aggressive.

>Well, all advanced civilizations decayed at the same time they would adopt more liberal politics and stop restricting women sexualy
WHAT

Read a fucking history book. 99% of all dead civilisations crumbled because of either religion, natural disaster or war.
>Also, there has never been an advanced matriarcal civilization, only very simple ones.
True, but that has nothing to do with the original topic, does it?

I already beat you in the argument because according to you the worst thing women did was hand out feathers. While I agree that was pretty bad, I already established it was nothing compared to the shit men have done, which you still haven't yet been able to deny.

Because you're bad at debating.

Men have died so their women and families don't have to and will continue to do so despite faginism or any other social justice movement. It's social justice, just not for men.

Egypt. Imperial Rome, and lots of other ones that you can find pretty easily.

Why do these threads get any fucking replies at all? Is Sup Forums full of dense autistic shills?

>Well all women on the pill are as if they’re not ovulating, so it’s possible that a lot of the antipathy that exists right now between women and men exists because of the birth control pill. The idea that women were discriminated against across the course of history is appalling.

>Now groups that were discriminated against. What are you going to do about it? The only societies that are not slave societies are western enlightenment democracies. That’s it. Compared to utopia, it sucks. But compared to everywhere else – people don’t emigrate to the Middle East to live there, and there’s good reason for that.

Nothing good comes from talking about men and women in terms of oppressor and oppressed. Men and women had different roles because of different biology. When we had the means to make them more equal we did.

Trannies are fucked in the head. They have such a strong desire to be a woman but what they end up being is a whore. Is it just undesirable males trying to get fucked?

Women don't need to be bad if men are willing to carry the burden you dumb bitch. Is that hard to comprehend? The woman passes the feather, passes the gun, passes the buck. Fuck what they think.

>nobody wants their survival to rely 100% on someone else

>Modern women wish for a guy to sweep them up an take care of everything, so they can sit at home
shitnigger youre trying but your stuffs all fucked up

Im just asking a philosophical question. Left wing idelogy is built up on the fact that one group of people is oppressed and the other group of is doing the oppressing, but what it's all bullshit and we've been drinking the koolaide for too long?

Any excuse to post women, really.

>women = irrational children
They were treated exactly how they acted.

Who is this c'm-n d'm-n?

>Why do people on a political discussion board debate a very relevant topic

>Define 2nd hand job

A job that would not give them as much money

Want an example? When the animation industry was booming in the 20th century, studios would ONLY hire male artists to draw characters, women literally could not be hired for this position. The only position they could be hired at was at background painters, which didn't even earn half as much as animators did. It didnt matter if a woman's drawings were 10 times better than a guy's, she would simply never get hired as a character designer simply for being a woman.

>why
Because they were seen as less valuable, employers didn't think they deserved as much money as men did and believed their work to be inferior.

>proof?
Where the fuck do you think the maiden name thing comes from? A daughter was property of the father, who would then switch over property to the groom, thats why your women drop their family name for their husband's when they get married. You're a fucking shitposter/troll if you're refusing to admit that women were not seen as property. If you fucking read tarzan of the apes you'll see that in the end tarzan sells all his property INCLUDING JANE to some faggot who wanted to cuck him.

Women were seen as CHATTEL, "living" property or property that could be moved around (jewelry, livestock, wagons and such)

>and a man doesn't need his wife's permission to do shit?

And a man gets arrested/killed/beaten for disobeying?

>That's flat out false. Women have always been able to own property, even in the middle east

Only if they were married. They also couldn't write wills, everything was automatically inherited to their children.

>powerless in what way?

They literally couldn't vote, faggot

those monitors...wtf is this 2001?

They had a different set of roles within society than men based in the biological differences.
Men had to work and provide resources, often times put their life on the line and die while defending them. Women and children first also shows that they eefi Italy had privileges men didn't have.
In return for being handed resources and special priveges, it was their job to care for children and and the men's homes.

I don't see how this is oppression, it was just a difference in roles based on what is the most efficient for a society that wants to survive.

What you don't get is that in a lot of these households, the wife was the true ruler.
You think that because they had different roles and restricted posibilities they were slaves, where in fact, a lot of women were VERY powerfull in all ages.
And there was always badass women that did everything on their own.
But mostly, you understimate how women manipulate man, they always had a lot of power, but in a different area.
Now we have both women and men compiting to do the same, and no one wants to do the job women did before, because paying someone else to do it for you it's not the fucking same.

Yes, but relative to men of their time? Fuck no.

singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

"Most of this narrative stems from 'feminists' comparing the plight of average women to the topmost men (the monarch and other aristocrats), rather than to the average man. This practice is known as apex fallacy, and whether accidental or deliberate, entirely misrepresents reality. To approximate the conditions of the average woman to the average man (the key word being 'average') in the Western world of a century ago, simply observe the lives of the poorest peasants in poor countries today. Both men and women have to perform tedious work, have insufficient food and clothing, and limited opportunities for upliftment."

"As far as selective anecdotes like voting rights go, in the vast majority of cases, men could not vote either. In fact, if one compares every nation state from every century, virtually all of them extended exactly the same voting rights (or lack thereof) to men and women. Even today, out of 200 sovereign states, there are exactly zero that have a different class of voting rights to men and women. Any claim that women were being denied rights that men were given in even 1% of historical instances, falls flat."

/end/

We only hear about women's oppression because no one gives a fuck about men. People care more about women who died thousands of years ago than they do about a down-and-out man living right now.

They aren't monitors, they're picture frames.

Then how is it that there are so many male dominated societies where polygamy wasn't the norm while the few examples of truly female dominated societies tended to live like fucking bonobos? Man's smallest social structure doesn't have women in it: it has other men, like the hunting bands of the chimpanzees, thus the tendency toward defending the frontiers of society or imitating that defense through sport. Men have wider variance in IQ for a reason: there are men who can control themselves and organize the stupider men by enforcing gang virtues essentially. There are few women with the same capacity but many who can damage this structure; they tend to be average and average is not as dumb as the stupidest men, but still fucking stupid. Also even in polygamous societies men maintained order and conducted civilized discourse, due to this male hierarchy being separate from their interaction with women. Man's tendencies only lean toward the truly primitive when his desire to seek women beats his desire to participate regularly in the male social structures. If the structure provides a woman or obfuscates the need, then society can function in a civilized manner ala the rape of the Sabine women preceding Rome.

I have known a few trannies in my time (real life and the internet) and I have found that a common thread among them is delusion. They have a warped view of women, femininity, and gender roles. Why do you think they take such absurd names like Narcissa and Carolyn Petite? Overtly, comically effeminate names that wouldn't be out of place on pornstars. It's because they think that being a woman is easier than being a man, so they pretty much just give up on being a man to become a woman.

Strangely, at the same time, they expect the benefits of manhood and womanhood at the same time. The strength, logical thinking and respect of being a man with the attention, lack of responsibility and preferential treatment of being a woman. It's pure delusion and fetishism.

>please learn to sociology

Please learn to be going back to r.eddit you fucking chink whore.

>couldn't vote
>couldn't set their own last will and testament
>couldn't work in whatever they wanted to

"lol guise they were totally not oppressed its just marxist propaganda!"

I'm getting the fuck out of here rn, you faggots are unreal, like you guys whine about shit like antifa thinking they're the good guys, but you faggots are the same, 2 sides of a same coin.

Yes,
Because women evolved to fill a specific role within the tribal structure: that of child rearers.
This job requires that behavior be dictated largely by emotion, because human children are Fucking obnoxious and If you are detached like the average male you will Fucking kill them by the time they reach 8 years old.
The downside of this is that because of their reliance on emotion most women are unsuited for stressful situations where detachment is essential, like combat, or dangerous industry tasks, or buisiness dealings, or government.
As a result it has been necessary for men to prevent women from obtaining positions where they are responsible for large communities, because women treat any community like a family unit, but without shared genetics large organizations are doomed to infighting which women are unable to deal with forcefully.
Ironically enough this means fascist racial nationalist systems are actually the most likely to be run successfully by women specifically because of the inherent xenophobia shared by nationalist societies as well as tight nit family units.

>Sociology

Also, women are the limiting factor in human reproduction, not men. "Male desire" is not the basis of sexual norms.

>Women don't need to be bad
Beautiful backtracking right here, mate, excellent job. Why don't you go back a few posts ago and reread what you first said, you school certificate dropout.

>Rome
Don't know about Egypt but absolutely not Rome. Blame Christianity and their fuckups of constantly changing government systems for that downfall.

>where polygamy wasn't the norm
Actually, most societies DID have it as the norm. And yes, men cheating on their wives with prostitutes counts.

It is when you consider men often rape and kidnap women to force them to be prostitutes.

>Queen Victoria
>Tsar Catherine the Great
People who say women have never lead nations and societies are historically illiterate. Maybe the average woman wasn't allowed to do men things back in the past. That is really it. Women held land in most European societies and they ruled in varying degrees. It was uncommon but it happened. Woman generally had it easier throughout history because they were just delegated to the homemakers while men labored, fought, died, and slaved away for the societies Europe built.

>rn

Go back to Facebook or whatever shithole you came from and never come back you fucking spic.

Women couldn't vote because they were not expected to fight and die if diplomacy failed. Their political opinions and actions carry less weight for this reason.

The fact they are largely emotional children is secondary.

FUCKING. READ. THE THREAD. BEFORE. POSTING.

Actually, i'm afraid ignorance is on your side this time friend. Study sociocultural changes of all advanced societies as the end got near, and you will see it's the truth.

...

>stretch marks on boobs

in the oven she goes

Said what I was trying to much better.