~ archived since 2018 ~

"Computers, most of whom were women, were hired to perform repetitive calculations for hours on end. The practice dated back to the 1750s . . . "

[deleted]

February 8, 2012

1 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/39669/

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	"Computers, most of whom were women, were hired to perform repetitive calculations for hours on end. The practice dated back to the 1750s . . . "
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	1
Comments	37
Date	February 8, 2012 1:38 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/pg7j2/computers_most_of_whom_were_women_were_hired_to/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/computers-most-of-whom-were-women-were-hired-to.1028042 https://theredarchive.com/post/1028042

Comments

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]csgardner 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]C0CKPUNCHER 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]C0CKPUNCHER 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

But what does better job prospects mean overall? Most men still did jobs that were worst than a secretary, jobs that would be illegal today, either in agriculture or industry. They were still more likely to be alcoholic, commit suicide etc - I assume with reason. More likely to die childless, die violently etc etc. More men were at the bottom, as such I don't care if women were trapped in the middle. Just because you can't shoot for the stars doesn't mean your life is shit. The were also those two world wars, in which men died more than women by a large multiple. For most of the 20th century there was no middle class remember, that means the vast majority of the population just shoveled shit until their body gave up, these jobs were more a punishment than anything to envy. Your point seems to lack perspective.

[–]JockeVXO 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]blueyb 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

I'm sorry, I gotta speak up.

I think the path of "The past wasn't nearly so bad as you whiny feminists make it sound like" is a dead end for the MR movement. Women were not allowed to vote, women were not respected as fully thinking human beings compared to men.

Regardless, comments like:

When you learn real history, traditionalism becomes a lot less "shocking" and "wrong"

Are tailor made for those who constantly decry we wish to "preserve male privilege". We must move forward.

I don't want women "back in the kitchen", and I don't particularly care to what level they were or were not exploited/abused in the past. What we have is to go forward, and going forward, I'm an MRA to fight for equality for everyone, focusing on the inequalities being dealt to men, for which there are many.

But denial women were ever treated badly in this country, and waxing poetic on "traditionalism" will only get us vilified by the public at large.

[–]typhonblue 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]JeremiahMRA 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

We've already discussed this, typhon. Maybe you should listen this time instead of perpetuating more falsehoods.

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/p3jqy/why_i_dont_call_myself_a_feminist_genderratic/c3mlnq5

Was having a wife and family who stuck by you through thick and thin and being able to raise your children as you saw fit and actually HAVE children who could grow up free... was that worth working hard to care for them and perhaps putting my life on the line to defend my family?

Yes, that would be a fair trade for me.

And if it wasn't, then I could go do something else.

Now my choices are quite limited and the dangers are everywhere, and I am even more expendable than before. If I want kids I have to try to find a faithful western woman, find a way to raise my kids without them being indoctrinated utterly against me and against family, hope that I'm not divorced and forced to slave away without ever getting to see my kids and being unable to teach them to be adults, and in the meantime we are heading toward fascism so I'm not even sure I want my kids to go through such a hardship. I'm more expendable than ever, and so are my kids.

Would I rather live 80 years of slavery or 40 years of freedom?

I know what I'd choose.

[–]typhonblue 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You'd be more likely to be dead in years past.

How many Victorian gentlemen were there to every dead and crippled rail way worker or soldier or miner? And how many men were beaten to an inch of their lives by women back then and if they ever alluded to the violence, they would be publicly ridiculed and humiliated?

In fact if a woman wanted a divorce in a 'traditional' society, she could get one on the grounds of 'impotence'. Do you know how a man had to prove he wasn't impotent? Naked, in front of an audience of people poking him with sticks.

They had alimony, restraining orders, and female-on-male domestic and sexual violence and false accusations two hundred years ago. As well as enormous rates of death in war and in unsafe workplaces. The difference was that if men complained about their vastly greater rate of death and dismemberment, they were even more likely to get hit with the 'man up' stick.

Now men can fight the 'man up' stick with the word 'equality.'

[–]JeremiahMRA 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Divorce rate 5% vs 50%.

Having control of one's family vs having absolutely no power in the home over one's wife or one's children.

And how many men were beaten to an inch of their lives by women back then and if they ever alluded to the violence, they would be publicly ridiculed and humiliated?

If my woman hit me back then I'd hit the bitch right back and then we wouldn't have a problem anymore. These days I have no power to do so unless I want to be imprisoned and lose my family. And women know this, which means it is far more likely for them to start shit in the first place. Women were much better, much more humble, back then, even though they were still extremely selfish and demanding. And women's violence was much more rare because men knew how to handle it and they hadn't lost the freedom to do so.

You act like life was hell for men 100 years ago. It's pure hyperbole. It's a lie. Freedom is hardship, but it's worth it. No one is claiming the past was perfect. You like many proles these days value leisure over freedom (a very feminine thing). I value freedom over comfort (a very masculine thing).

Now men can fight the 'man up' stick with the word 'equality.'

Pfft oh really? When? Where? On fucking Reddit? How about in the public sphere or in the courts?

You are talking out your ass if you think things are better for men today, lol. Keep wishing because you aren't discussing reality. And most of the hardships men faced in the past had to due with lack of technology, not traditionalism. You're getting mixed up and relying on revisionist history.

The Human Planet is a nice series. Why don't you go watch that and try to understand what men are really missing and why it was worth it back then, even though women were still lazy and selfish. http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/humanplanetexplorer/

Traditionalism was horrible for men. They were treated like expendable cogs.

You're oversimplifying, of course. Let me do the same, but more appropriately. Today men cannot even raise their children. In a traditional model they could. And since family is probably the most important thing to a family man, which most men are, then I'd have to say traditionalism is outright superior to this socialist shitfest we have today.

Note also that your entire argument is emotional. It is hyperbole. Stick to rational arguments, not emotional appeals and trigger words to make egalitarians shout YES! YES! Be honorable. There are far more important things to deal with than whether a man is told to "man up", and you know that. Freedom and family, for example, are vastly more important.

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]MartialWay 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]blueyb 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]C0CKPUNCHER 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]blueyb 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]C0CKPUNCHER 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Women were not allowed to vote, women were not respected as fully thinking human beings compared to men.

99% of men could not vote in any western nation until the early-mid 20th century. This was not a right that all men had over women.

Are tailor made for those who constantly decry we wish to "preserve male privilege". We must move forward.

Strawman. He never said go back. He said looking back, you see its not the horrible hell of the patriarchy. You know, the foundation of the entire feminist ideology [that one that uses false statistics and outright lies to pass legislation.] I've heard demon say many times we can't go back.

I'm the first one to say we can't go back, and we shouldn't go back. Don't fucking get married. Save your money, invest, work, practice safe sex. Don't give up half of your future earnings because you couldn't wrap it up. There is absolutely no fucking reason to get married. Does this mean I shouldn't try and shoot down false history? Like your patently false idea that men were more important than women? Even though men have always been more likely to die earlier, more likely to suffer debilitating injuries at work, the only ones to go to war, more likely to die childless, more likely to suicide, more likely to be homeless, etc etc.

Laws were created to stop women and children from working more than 12 hour days inside industrial factories. There were no such laws enacted for men until we had set work hour day laws passed.

Demon is not saying go back, he is saying stop looking back and lying. Stop saying human society shit on women, when we clearly shit on men and protected women.

[–]blueyb 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]blueyb 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I've read the mularkey people like you are spewing. You can believe a society where people are all treated the same under the law and society judges based on action a destructive utopian fantasy. I don't care, it's what i believe and what i will fight for.

What you advocate isn't Men's Rights. It's Male Supremacy. I'm not a male supremacist, I'm an egalitarian. I will fight against discriminatory laws and policies such as VAWA and the female-dominated public school system, I will call out feminists who skew and fabricate statistics and situations to use society to hurt men and boys, but I will also stand with feminists in areas where women truly are disadvantaged, if and when they are brought to my attention.

No one deserves to be treated differently, better or worse, based on how they were born. Only an individual's actions should be used to judge an individual.

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]blueyb 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What does that have to do with believing or not believing a revisionist history.

Because if you read real history, you can find out what has happened when we've attempted to do just that in the past.

What's important to me is that no one deserves to have a leg up or a starting handicap just because of how they were born.

/facepalm

But that's exactly what happens! Go tell the kid who was born with CP that he has an "equal opportunity" to be an NFL star. Go tell the downs child that she has an "equal opportunity" to be a rocket scientist.

Reality doesn't work the way you want it to. As such, when you try to layer your beliefs on top of reality, they fail. If you were able to research real history, you'd see this and begin to question your beliefs rather than spout ideology that has no connection with the world you live in.