~ archived since 2018 ~

Feminism is a lie that men oppressed women

MeanCompetition4044

September 22, 2021

0 upvotes

Feminism is a lie that men oppressed women rather than women submitting to men because of the benefits they got from doing so, and that it was better for everyone involved

Women as a group still can't take care of themselves, even with alimony, mandatory child support, default child custody and dominate aggressor policies, they still can't help but constantly be in trouble.

Becoming teens mom, single mothers, waiting until their eggs turn into dust and blow away or getting involved with thugs while treating the upstanding men of society as mediocre

Do you think they could been equal partners in a subsistence farming society engulfed in perpetual warfare?

Of coarse they needed male companions to influence their actions, even with a welfare state and lifetime male financial commitments to them they still can't operate as well independently as they do when cooperating with their male benefactors

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	Feminism is a lie that men oppressed women
Author	MeanCompetition4044
Upvotes	0
Comments	31
Date	September 22, 2021 8:48 AM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/AntiFeminists
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/antifeminists/comments/pt3c66/feminism_is_a_lie_that_men_oppressed_women/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/AntiFeminists/feminism-is-a-lie-that-men-oppressed-women.1075020 https://theredarchive.com/post/1075020

Comments

[–]MeanCompetition4044[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]thatspositive -9 points-8 points-7 points 4 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]MeanCompetition4044[S] 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

I didn't say that women chose to be oppressed, you unsexed, pathetic pussybegger. Learn to read.

They never were oppressed by men. Oppressed means to be taken from a positive or neutral state to a negative one by an outward force, thats not what men were.

Women chose to have a male provider they were subservient to because that would give them security that was much more important to them psychologically than personal autonomy, it made them happier. Being a wife was a liberation from many of life's major worries, not unwanted subjugation.

This was an age where dangerous jobs and war which resulted a cut could turn into an infection and kill you and women got to stay safe doing low exertion tasks while being around their children and the community

Men were willing to deal with the hardships, risk an early death in work and war in exchange for a higher position in society than their wives. Their authority over them was earned, not granted and the women demanded a high price for it

But you don't care about all that

You think the men should have just performed these societal obligations while asking for nothing in return. You're a feminist piece of shit with internalized misandry who actually thinks mens contributions to womens lives weren't of substantial value and they didn't deserve anything for them

[–]thatspositive 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Oh boy lots of fun projection here!

I didn't say that women chose to be oppressed, you unsexed, pathetic pussybegger. Learn to read.

I'd say being "oppressed" and being "subservient" are fairly synymous in this context, wouldn't you?

I'm not sure how one gender could be subservient to another without being oppressed at the same time.

On an individual level I could see how one could be subservient without being oppressed, but on a class level? No way.

Oppressed means to be taken from a positive or neutral state to a negative one by an outward force, thats not what men were

Ah not really. Oppression means "prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority."

You don't have to have once been in a positive or neutral state to be oppressed. As long as a demographic is being treated unjustly by authority they are oppressed.

You said women chose to be subservient to men, which makes men the "authority". I would say treating women as subservient is unjust, and then by definition, is the same as you saying "they chose to be oppressed"

But you don't care about all that

You think the men should have just performed these societal obligations while asking for nothing in return. You're a feminist piece of shit with internalized misandry who actually thinks mens contributions to womens lives weren't of substantial value and they didn't deserve anything for them

Lol, I'm sure you believe that I think that.

[–]MeanCompetition4044[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Women as group chose to be in a position of submission because what they gained from it was psychologically more valuable than personal autonomy

For submission, they gained societal benefits and provisions without equal responsibilities

They didn't have to fight in war, they didn't have to do dangerous jobs, they didn't have to be separated from their children and the community to do those jobs, they didn't have to do hard labor

They got to primarily assign to themselves relatively artisan activities like cooking, sowing and animal husbandry

In a world where a cut can turn into an infection that kills you, this is great security for themselves while minimizing risks

In short by accepting and promoting gender roles for themselves they were able to enforce gender roles onto men, otherwise why would men accept such huge negative consequences of male gender roles meant for the benefit of women?

Women weren't oppressed into male submission by men, in most of history the number of men to marry women was relatively low and women competed for the privilege of such "oppression," women who weren't able to wed were understandably pitied

Women would pay sums to have portraits painted of them and sent around the world looking for suitors, they would even travel across the seas to have the privilege of being submissive to any man who would be willing to take them on, even sight unseen, even if they didn't speak the same language

Women were never oppressed by men, being able to have a husband who expected submission to them in exchange for his protections and provisions was a blessing

Feminism is a lie. Feminism says this was all orchestrated by men to oppress women, not that women themselves wanted these gender roles for their own benefit.

[–]thatspositive 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Women as group chose to be in a position of submission because what they gained from it was psychologically more valuable than personal autonomy

Which is the same as saying "they chose to be oppressed"

You can make the case that there were benefits to being a slave in early America too, but just because you can find benefits to being oppressed (or "submissive") doesn't mean it's not still oppression.

otherwise why would men accept such huge negative consequences of male gender roles meant for the benefit of women?

Complex question and I think you're theory might have a small nugget of truth to it. But if I were simplify it down I would say men mostly accepted these gender roles as they believed they were better at them. They believed that they would be the better leaders, thinkers and providers, and that women were best served as the caretakers.

Women weren't oppressed into male submission by men

I don't think men deliberately designed things like that originally with that explicit intention. But it doesn't change the fact systems that were run by vast majority men helped keep women oppressed (or "submissive") over the years.

[–]MeanCompetition4044[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

there were benefits to being a slave in early America too

Stupid comparison:

Women wanted to married and competed for spouses since male infant mortality rates were considerably higher. Blacks did not want to be slaves
Women greatly gained from marriage while blacks gained nothing and lost everything

Like fucking dumb, do you really think marriage and slavery in the 1500s were literally comparable? I guess if you swallow the feminist bullshit about marriage being slavery then that could happen.

I would say men mostly accepted these gender roles as they believed they were better at them

Completely stupid.

Do you really know so little about war or workplace deaths in earlier societies that you think men just did it because they thought it might as well be them? "Well, if its gonna be me to suffer and die or somebody else, might as well be me!" What kind of zero IQ perspective is that?

No.

Men were rewarded for having greater responsibility in society with a higher place in it and it was accepted by women because they didn't want to have that responsibility. Neither did many men, which is why executions for desertion or refusal of participation were common. You think women wanted an equal place beside men at that cost? Delusional.

it doesn't change the fact systems that were run by vast majority men helped keep women oppressed

You keep saying this dumb bullshit about them being oppressed because in your mind they were. It's demented.

They weren't oppressed, they were submissive because they gained from it and by playing the weak-woman role they were able to compel men to play the strong-man role and miss out on life's biggest hardships while experiencing it's joys

You literally have to hate men to think that men, with everything that they did for women, didn't do more than what it was they asked for in return

You have have to be feminist to have a viewpoint that's that fucked up

As if men should have served women with labor and warfare but then treated them as if they had contributed equally when they had not.

Why do feminists think they're entitled to such special treatment? Because make babies and thereby for reason that are never explained are entitled to both preferential treatment of their gender in some areas and equality in all others. And because they didn't get that, that means they were "oppressed"

Feminism is lie. Women were never oppressed.

[–]thatspositive 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Blacks did not want to be slaves

There are many journals and letters from slaves at the time detailing how grateful they were to be given food, a roof over their heads, and the opportunity to learn new skills as a slave

blacks gained nothing and lost everything

Don't get me wrong it was despicable, but don't act like you can't cherry pick silver linings from any instance of oppression.

Like fucking dumb, do you really think marriage and slavery in the 1500s were literally comparable?

No not at all, I think the logic of your argument is entirely comparable though.

Do you really know so little about war or workplace deaths in earlier societies that you think men just did it because they thought it might as well be them? "Well, if its gonna be me to suffer and die or somebody else, might as well be me!" What kind of zero IQ perspective is that?

I mean, yeah pretty much. I think men believed that this type of work was too dangerous and difficult for women. Women were dainty, pure and innocent, working and war was a man's job, women were far too incompetent and had to be protected.

They weren't oppressed, they were submissive

And again. In class a setting oppressed and submissive are basically synonymous. There were literally laws preventing women from voting, going to university, or running for parliament.

If there's laws preventing one gender from getting into power but not the other...how does that not fit the definition of oppression?

You literally have to hate men to think that men, with everything that they did for women, didn't do more than what it was they asked for in return

Hey, these gender roles were equally fucked for both men and women.

As if men should have served women with labor and warfare but then treated them as if they had contributed equally when they had not.

Ah no, of course not I never said that lol.

[–]MeanCompetition4044[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There are many journals and letters from slaves at the time detailing how grateful they were to be given food, a roof over their heads, and the opportunity to learn new skills as a slave

You'd have to be stupid if you think none of that was under coercion. They also didn't have a choice. Women did. In fact not only was getting married a choice, it was something they had to compete against other women for because of male infant death rates, they considerably outnumbered the men.

No not at all, I think the logic of your argument is entirely comparable though.

No, being a slave and being a wife are different enough especially concerning their choice to be in the circumstance, that they aren't comparable. For argumentation or otherwise. Religion also had many protections for wives and demands of husbands for how to treat their wives that slaves never had.

You might well try comparing slavery to employment. But I have a feeling that sort of insanity is well within your purview.

I think men believed that this type of work was too dangerous and difficult for women. Women were dainty, pure and innocent, working and war was a man's job, women were far too incompetent and had to be protected.

And women didn't opposed this point of view because they benefited from it, they weren't oppressed into the role, they went along with it because playing along benefited them more than the opposite would. That's why they weren't oppressed. Of coarse men were given a higher place in society when they have more responsibility, that's only natural and only a feminist could view that as being oppressed.

In a class setting oppressed and submissive are basically synonymous.

Nope. Completely wrong. Choosing to be submissive to someone and not having that choice made for you are entirely different things. You keep missing this distinction

There were literally laws preventing women from voting, going to university, or running for parliament.

Making laws to keep the inferior sex who "can't handle" hard labor and warfare from taking men's positions is only natural. Again, its a consequence that some women didn't like but as a group didn't care about and furthermore if being able to do those things meant their demographic would be exposed to warfare, hard labor and a lack of gender role benefits, they didn't want it. It wasn't just men who wanted things this way, most women did as well.

Hey, these gender roles were equally fucked for both men and women.

No, they were considerably more fucked for men than women. Men did all the hard labor and warfare to make women's lives as easy and comfortable as possible. They weren't oppressed. If anything men were coerced by women into accepting such a deplorable exchange or risk being shamed by them as "not a man." And women did so mercilessly in times of warfare, even in WW2 they were handing out chicken feathers to 15 year old boys who weren't eligible for enlistment. Does sound like someone oppressed to you?

A note: Women never deserved to have equality with men when they were free riding off them so much. That's why they were never viewed by men or by women as deserving to be equal. It wasn't oppression. It was the logical conclusion that those contribute more to society being higher within that society.

[–]thatspositive 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You'd have to be stupid if you think none of that was under coercion.

Well the relationship between a slave and his master is obviously in Deeply rooted with coercion lol. But I doubt the majority of these journal entries weren't honest, Why would you force a slave to lie in their private journal only for it to be dug up a century later?

In fact not only was getting married a choice

Ehhh hate to break it to you buddy but that was not always the case. Arranged marriages used to be very common and still exist to this day.

No, being a slave and being a wife are different enough especially concerning their choice to be in the circumstance, that they aren't comparable

No, they aren't comparable. Its the logic you're using to say that women chose to be oppressed is comparable to saying that black people chose to be slaves.

You might well try comparing slavery to employment. But I have a feeling that sort of insanity is well within your purview.

Not that it has anything to do with what we're talking about but, yes many forms of employment around the world are so poorly paid they may as well be slavery.

No, being a slave and being a wife are different enough especially concerning their choice to be in the circumstance

Did women really have a choice though? Granted women had more freedoms than slaves did, but it's not like a woman could be born into 1800's America and chose to go university could she? That was against the law.

Nope. Completely wrong. Choosing to be submissive to someone and not having that choice made for you are entirely different things. You keep missing this distinction

Correct. An individual can chose to be submissive without being oppressed. But a whole class of people? How can a whole class of people make an informed consensual decision to be the submissive class?

Making laws to keep the inferior sex who "can't handle" hard labor and warfare from taking men's positions is only natural

Oh okay, so they didn't choose to be oppressed, but it was a "natural" thing to do to oppress women because they're inferior. Is that right?

Again, its a consequence that some women didn't like but as a group didn't care about

This is just a feelings argument. How can you possibly know what women as a group felt about it at the time? And it doesn't matter either way, just because the majority of people feel a certain way doesn't make it correct, systemic coercion happens all the time.

its a consequence that some women didn't like but as a group didn't care about and furthermore if being able to do those things meant their demographic would be exposed to warfare, hard labor and a lack of gender role benefits, they didn't want it. It wasn't just men who wanted things this way, most women did as well.

Does your argument consist of anything other than "there were benefits to being oppressed, so therefore women werent oppressed"? because that's not terribly convincing.

A note: Women never deserved to have equality with men when they were free riding off them so much. That's why they were never viewed by men or by women as deserving to be equal. It wasn't oppression. It was the logical conclusion that those contribute more to society being higher within that society.

If thats true then why create laws preventing from going to university? Women can't contribute more if they dont have the opportunity to contribute more

[–]MeanCompetition4044[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

doubt the majority of these journal entries weren't honest, Why would you force a slave to lie in their private journal

To propagandize the the harmony of master-slave ownership to populations who viewed such relationships negatively or skeptically

Arranged marriages used to be very common

Pre-arranged by parents without the boy's consent either, stripping him of the ability to choose by his parents so that they could guarantee someone else's daughter would not go unwed from a competition for affection

the logic you're using to say that women chose to be oppressed is comparable to saying that black people chose to be slaves

No, its not comparable because women very much choose to have a submissive role in society for benefits while slaves did not make that choice. Women gained 99% of the benefit from gender roles whiles slave masters gained 99% of the benefits of slavery. There is a difference based on choice, desirability to be in the situation and benefit from being in that situation. Being a wife or slave is therefor completely incomparable.

Did women really have a choice though? ....... it's not like a woman could be born into 1800's America and chose to go university could she? That was against the law.

Society was built around men providing and protecting women. It was the view that a woman taking a man's place in education or employment was an opportunity being taken away from a man which then would reduce that man's ability to take care of a woman. It wasn't to oppress women but to ensure the maximum number of women could be taken care of by men.

You keep thinking that women were oppressed when they were ones getting the 99% of the benefit of gender roles while men got relatively little.

How can a whole class of people make an informed consensual decision to be the submissive class?

Group decisions through collaborations are how unions, democratic governments and many organizations operate.

It absolutely not oppression to be part of a group that makes group decisions and then have to abide by the terms set for by the majority of the group for the benefit of the group. This is also why being submissive to men was different than slavery, slavery had no component of group consent.

Oh okay, so they didn't choose to be oppressed, but it was a "natural" thing to do to oppress women because they're inferior. Is that right?

Women were not oppressed. They were simply not given equal rights to men because they did not have equal responsibilities because the majority of those women did not want those responsibilities.

Neither men nor women viewed women as being capable of handling those responsibilities.

Women in america didn't even want the right to vote until they were convinced that they could get it without becoming eligible for military conscription and if that qualifier had not have been added they wouldn't have demanded the right to vote and still wouldn't want it, because war by the US is still frequent.

How can you possibly know what women as a group felt about it at the time?

Because opposition to women's movements throughout history, which have occurred all throughout history, was predominate done by other women.

And it doesn't matter either way, just because the majority of people feel a certain way doesn't make it correct, systemic coercion happens all the time.

It does matter that it was based on the will of the majority of the group. That why women weren't oppressed by men. If anything all you have to argue is that women oppressed other women into submission because the majority of them wanted it. That isn't an argument for men oppressing women, it's an argument against it.

Does your argument consist of anything other than "there were benefits to being oppressed, so therefore women werent oppressed"?

The vast majority of women believed in gender roles, as well as men
Women gained 99% of the benefits
Women decided upon what their gender roles should be as a group for the benefit of the majority
Women were given alternatives to marriage by religious service as a form of security.

If thats true then why create laws preventing from going to university? Women can't contribute more if they dont have the opportunity to contribute more

In addition to the argument that an opportunity for education given to a woman was one taken from a man, institutions like universities were meant for society's outstanding individuals, which women were not, they were parasitical.

The point of universities is to create a better individual so that they can better serve society. But women as a group already decided that they wanted to contribute less to society than men, so of coarse an institution designed to maximize individual's contributions to society would be limited to men who's role was to contribute the maximum to society.

Also placements were limited and it was well known that the primary reason most women wanted to go to university was to have the opportunity to meet lots of high value men for marriage, a waste of resources in a subsistence society that couldn't afford the loss.

On top of that when comparing the smartest women versus the smartest men, the smartest men are smarter than society's smartest women. This is proven in a variety of tests in our modern society and it was certainly thought to be true in the past, which being proven true, you can't fault them for.

[–]Pingayaso 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]thatspositive -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pingayaso 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]thatspositive 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pingayaso 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]thatspositive -9 points-8 points-7 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]MeanCompetition4044[S] 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]MeanCompetition4044[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]thatspositive 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MeanCompetition4044[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]LadyKalliope 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MeanCompetition4044[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LadyKalliope 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MeanCompetition4044[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Military conscription was necessary because if a society didn't do it they would be conquered by a nation that did and that was the reality of human history until nuclear weapons were developed

And the entire time it was customary and agreed upon by all sides that women should be able to be safe at home with children doing artisan activities of cooking, sowing and animal husbandry while the men had to die violent deaths or be executed

And you say women were oppressed by men, what fucking joke

Men throughout history didn't have the right to vote or own property either, they were serfs, and they still did all this for you

Women's thankfulness for this? Nothing. Zero. That's why you think women were oppressed. Because you think their lower position in society wasn't justified by their lower contribution because men's contribution weren't of value

If regular war was still a reality, and the right to vote meant military conscription, you wouldn't have traded for it

Women's lower status in exchange for protection wasn't oppression, it was a choice