Question for feminists (since they all seem to be in r/MensRights): if women are as strong, capable, energetic,creative, etc. as men then how did patriarchy come about?

[+]spermjack_attack 18 points19 points20 points 13 years ago* (108 children) | Copy Link

That's actually a good question, and it's something feminists regularly disagree on. I don't think feminists have developed the reason, but there are quite a few reasonable explanations.

A good explanation, is the one provided by Sandra Bem in Lenses of Gender. Her's is a historical materialist explanation, and she supposes that it was the gendered division of labor when humans transitioned into an agrarian society which produced gendered inequality. As labor divisions arose, labor forms became gendered. This proceeded from simple divisions of labor to modern organization of labor which reflect the gendered inequality we see today.

This explanation is supported by the fact that social inequality rises as societies become more specialized. Bem explanation is pretty good becuase it suggests that social inequality between genders doesn't require significant differences between genders. Rather, the emergence of inequality was slow, and the result of "rational" decision making on the part of individuals.

Though, it's not as if Bem's explanation is without it's problems. She depends to much on psychological explanations of society, and in many ways it limits her analysis.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Labor specialization also reduced starvation and absolute poverty, but that labor specialization was a mutually beneficial arrangement.

Perhaps the issue isn't whether patriarchy^TM exists, but whether it was actually oppressive. Pointing to a complimentary social dynamic and calling it oppression in a contemporary context seems rather short sighted. It was technology and labor specialization that allowed us to grow past small roving bands of people and it was that same labor specialization and technology that slowly made that social dynamic less relevant. It still doesn't make it oppression due to that.

Which is not say oppression can't occur within patriarchal societies, but if participating in such a society is mutually beneficial and voluntary, then that oppression isn't due to patriarchy.

[–]logrusmage 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]logrusmage 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]burntoast101 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gbanfalvi 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (71 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]spermjack_attack 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (70 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (69 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]spermjack_attack 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (68 children) | Copy Link

Biologically, men are better-suited to overt violence and chimpanzees, though not human, divide their labor along gender lines.

I don't think there is any good reason to believe this. Humans aren't chimpanzees, so that does not follow. I just don't by arguments which explain human behavior through animal analogy.

Further, there were other ways to hunt that didn't require "overt violence." Endurance hunting, for example. In fact, if we want to talk about biological differences, the higher percentage of body fat makes women more competent at endurance hunting. But either way, there was no reason to divide hunting up like this, especially when the primary source of food was foraging.

I think it more likely that gender roles were not coercive until expansionism became a thing, which followed agriculture out of the Fertile Crescent. Humans became less healthy but more numerous. Once one tribe successfully outbreeds another, the others have to compete or be consumed... which means women breeding more and men working harder to support more children and women doing less resource acquisition.

This seems somewhat reasonable, and i don't think conflicts with Bem's theory. In fact, Bem's theory only suggests that the agrarian shift was one point in development of gendered labor.

I understand native American history, but it's a little anachronistic to describe non-heteronormative native Americans as "gay men." Seeming how much of their culture runs counter to modern heteronormativity. But I get your point. But I am naive about native women hunters, though I think I read somewhere about Mesoamerican tribes where women hunted, I can't recall the specifics.

[–]SchalaZeal01 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

I don't think there is any good reason to believe this. Humans aren't chimpanzees, so that does not follow. I just don't by arguments which explain human behavior through animal analogy.

The Inuit were not agrarian, and hunted more likely due to necessity, and had gender divisions of labor.

Further, there were other ways to hunt that didn't require "overt violence." Endurance hunting, for example. In fact, if we want to talk about biological differences, the higher percentage of body fat makes women more competent at endurance hunting

Men have higher levels of endurance, actually. Women sometimes beat men in long distance swimming competitions, but this is due to having to exert less effort to keep oneself afloat. The normal fuel used by muscles is stored in the muscles and men have more muscles, and creating new glycogen requires both fuel and oxygen, both of which men have more available to them, the latter in both lung capacity and oxygen carrying capacity by having more RBCs per unit volume.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]spermjack_attack 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago* (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[+]spermjack_attack 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (23 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]spermjack_attack 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Do you have any evidence for women being able to endurance hunt anywhere near as well as men?

Fat is broken down at a higher rate when heart rate is increased over long periods of time. Your body depletes muscle stored glucose in about fifteen minutes of rigorous exercises and then switches over to metabolizing fats. If the hunt takes place over a few hours, having a higher body fat percentage would allow you to keep it up for longer. The added weight for women compared to men doesn't seem very much, as the overall fat won't make up that significant an amount of weight. The point of endurance hunting is to tire the prey, so all that is needed is continual pursuit, which women are just as capable of doing as men.

However, I wasn't trying to suggest that women are in fact better hunters then men, just that the variation between genders provides conflicting evidence to "who is best," and thus doesn't allow for the conclusion that men are "the best."

That doesn't mean that specialization wasn't helpful or necessary....

This is true, and I don't think Bem suggested that there was no division of labor. Rather, that whatever division was present wasn't built into reproducing gendered cultural practices because the necessity to divide labor along gendered lines wasn't motivated by any significant differences between men and women.

I don't know what you mean by naive...

I mean that I am somewhat ignorant of the experiences and practices of pre-colonized native american women. I haven't studied the subject closely.

Is this book what you read?

It was an academic article, I think, or a book chapter. It was from a Sociology of Gender course I took three years ago. But I have forgotten the details. Though that book looks pretty interesting!

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]spermjack_attack 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[+]spermjack_attack 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]tectonic9 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]spermjack_attack -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]spermjack_attack 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, and I think he is wrong, but what I wish to drive at is the manner in which he is wrong. Human beings are, first and foremost, survival and reproduction machines. Not only should these be (or be part of) the main principles by which we organize human behavior, they must be. For any human whose behavior is inconsistent with these principles, drives himself and/or his potential progeny into extinction. The same is true with any other species.

From these principles flows certain important logical implications, namely the existence of a hierarchy of evidence. Evidence that is consistent with these principles takes precedence over evidence which does not, because the later is either actually consistent with these principles and has been interpreted wrongly (making it less credible) or it describes maladaptive behavior which cannot exist for any extended period of time and therefore excludes itself from a comprehensive description of human behavior.

Accordingly, we can observe the existence of sex roles in many other parts of the animal kingdom, particularly in the behavior of our closest primate cousins, and we observe that they are consistent with these main principles. We take into account spermjack_attack's supposed evidence concerning early hunter-gatherer societies, and it appears inconsistent with these principles, and so we should regard it as inferior to the former evidence.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[+]spermjack_attack -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]spermjack_attack 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Yes, because in hunter gatherer societies, men did not venture further out from home base than women. Hunting didn't require that men range further out than women. Neither did patrolling territorial margins, or acting as the primary interface with neighboring (friendly and hostile) tribes.

Among nomadic tribes, it would never be the men who were in charge of community "public sphere" decisions, like which places offered enough game to settle in for a while and which didn't, or which places would be unsafe due to the presence of hostile neighbors. Men would not have been given the authority to, say, confine women and children to a specific area close to home, if predators or marauders were about.

Hunter gatherer societies would have given men NO public sphere power greater than women had...

I'll grant that most HG societies were more egalitarian in the degree of social status they gave men and women, and that agriculture changed this. However, there were other influences on that shift than simply "women didn't get out and interact with women". Agrarian societies fixed wealth to a piece of land that needed to be defended, and allowed for a surplus of food that also needed to be defended, permanent shelters that needed to be defended, etc. Both sexes went from working half-days to full-days typically, and the added physical burden on men was much more significant.

I also wonder what you mean about large farms leading to men interacting with each other more than women. I would expect that both men and women on larger farms wouldn't have much time to interact with anyone during their 14 hour long workdays--especially if it took hours of walking to do so.

[+]spermjack_attack -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think this division of labor concerned 100% of couplings. Or even a majority.

We have WAY higher standards of cleanliness than we did 2000 years ago, for example. We didn't dust and vaccuum (or the era's equivalent) every freaking day just to not be bored watching Oprah.

1) Children used to work at a very young age (before double digits), in whatever function they were able to. This probably includes both indoors and outdoors work, both in farms and in factories.

This made housework and childcare less onerous (the older children are tending to the younger ones, so you don't have to - ie a big family is not a bigger problem to you than a small one).

And 2), well, lots of women historically worked outside the home, in factories, as farmhands, as prostitutes, as maids, as teachers, and probably cooks for inns and such.

They probably did have children. As most everyone did. It wasn't just 15 years old girls working outside with everyone else being married, thus locked inside homes.

It's a recent standard to be able to have only one income (one which we seem to have lost). Even if the second income used to be normally more limited (as most women were confined to certain domains, that didn't pay as much). Only the upper middle class could afford to have both her stay home doing nothing with staff doing her housekeeping. Think Mary Poppins. The family she helps? They're that level of rich.

And those women? They're amongst the first feminists. Bored and rich, and white privileged women. Having staff do their job, complaining about how their life sucks compared to men working themselves an early death. How do you think they had time to get educated, write books, organize meetings? It's ALL they did.

[+]spermjack_attack -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

because women were charged with child care

You say that women were "charged" with child care as if they had no choice in the matter, but this completely ignores the realistic possibility that women chose to work inside the home out of a desire to avoid physically demanding and frequently dangerous labor.

Because someone needed to work the fields

And you say that someone was "needed" to work the fields implying that this was, in fact, the more valuable labor. In simple economic terms it surely was. The labor you do in the field benefits other people within your society, as you are creating food for their purchase. The labor you do inside you home does not benefit other people, or if so, not nearly to the same degree. Thus it makes sense why I as a fellow villager would value a farmer more than a housewife. The farmer benefits me. The housewife does not.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[+]spermjack_attack 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[+]spermjack_attack 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Manatee7474 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Collective82 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]spermjack_attack 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]OuiCrudites 21 points22 points23 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It is a total falsehood to generalize traditional societies, because they were in constant flux with many differences between them. But many of the things that Feminists call "patriarchal oppression" were actually class oppression, which treated people at a lower class poorly, and often treated men much, much worse. Also, the "gender roles" that feminists decry as patriarchal oppression were often mandated because women simply could not perform many roles due to lack of physical strength and endurance. And, the fact that women carry babies.

Women were able to begin evolving their gender roles when men invented the industrial revolution. But now that they are "strong and independent" they are belligerently opposed to men evolving our gender roles. Kind of calls into question whether they are strong or independent, no?

[–]auto_poena 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]OuiCrudites 19 points20 points21 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Do you mean my claim that men aren't allowed to evolve gender roles? Here's a big example. The minute that women declared themselves "strong and independent" and free from her traditional obligations, ALL of men's social obligations to her provision and protection should have ended immediately. No more chivalry in social situations, no more marching off to war to "protect the women," no more special treatment in the workplace or in academia.

However, that is NOT what has happened.

Women, generally, have declared themselves "strong and independent" but hypocritically lobby for a massive social welfare system to provide for ONLY women, created by the government with tax dollars. (Of which men pay the majority of.)
Women, generally, expect privilege and special treatment in the form of scholarships and hiring quotas in academia and employment. They also lobby their employers to grant them special accomodations for their personal life choices.
Women, generally, still expect chivalry and other forms of deference from men in friendships, dating, and relationships based on traditional gender roles. This can be as seemingly innocuous as expecting the man to "court" her, all the way up to and including throwing himself in front of a bullet for her.

As men are now seeking to evolve their gender roles, many women (and their disgusting male enablers) are using social shaming tactics, legal coercion, and threats of violence/actual violence to force men back into traditional male gender roles.

[–]auto_poena 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]spermjack_attack -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sadiebb 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]bendertotes9 points 13 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Grubnar 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sadiebb 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Rivers 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]pcarvious 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pcarvious 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]MechPlasma 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Roy Baumeister addresses this question excellently in his book, "Is There Anything Good About Men". Women (even today) are best equipped psychologically to cultivate and maintain close, intimate relationships, while men are better equipped to cultivate and maintain a greater number of shallow relationships in which they, as a member, are replaceable.

Even now, men are more likely to voluntarily participate in team sports as their favored form of physical activity than women, and other heavily gendered behaviors demonstrate the differences.

If you assemble a team of men and a team of women to, say, paint a house, and give one person on the team the power to divide up the money, women are more likely to split the reward equally among members regardless of individual performance (treat the group the way one would treat one's family/friends) while men are more likely to reward individuals based on performance.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Collective82 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Phototoxin -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You're missing three key elements:

1. Efficiency. If you admit that pre-industrial farming and blacksmithing take great strength and if you also admit that men tend to have a much greater potential for strength than women, then why wouldn't you assume that a primary reason why a father would train his son to blacksmith or farm and not his daughter is because he knew his son would grow to be strong enough to handle all part of the job more easily and more efficiently and that his daughter may not ever be able to grow strong enough to handle the work? Why would a pre-industrial laborer waste any time training someone to aid in certain skill areas? That isn't efficient at all.

2. Necessity. You claim that "we simply evolved such that men are stronger than women." This couldn't be further from the truth. The only reason why men evolved to be stronger than women is because the weak men died off and didn't have children. It may surprise you to learn that we have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors. This means that men had fewer chances to pass on their genes and had to truly excel in order to do so. They had to be bigger, stronger, and faster than the next guy. That is why I am bigger, stronger, and faster than you are. Because our female ancestors didn't really have to do all that much to pass on their genes. They had a MUCH higher chance to procreate so they didn't have to excel.

3. Choice. This also shows us what these societies likely looked like. Men worked incredibly hard because they had to constantly prove their worth in order to "win" the privilege to mate. What you, and frankly all feminists, seem to misunderstand or deliberately overlook, is that you are examining the past through a lens of privileged knowledge. You now KNOW what benefits come from working as a laborer. You look back on these societies and say "I would have wanted to be trained as a blacksmith or a farmer" but you never realize that the women who lived during that time probably didn't. These were women who didn't have to do much of anything to secure a mate. Do you really think they would want to work an incredibly physically demanding and seriously dangerous job instead of doing the relatively easy job of staying home and taking care of children? Seems like a pretty easy choice for someone faced with the very real possibility of dying every single day.

But you'd rather just blame it all on sexism? That men were actively keeping women out of these occupations while women were demanding to be able to work extremely physically intensive and dangerous jobs? Not likely.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The patriarchy was created when women wanted equality, but weren't allowed to have it.

Can you please define when exactly this time was? It is my understanding that as soon as women collectively asked for things to change, they got everything they demanded. And are you saying that women were not historically oppressed by men? Because that seems to be pretty standard feminist ideology.

The fact that someone, somewhere, decided that women weren't capable and thus not allowed to vote is an example of the patriarchy.

You are aware that the vast majority of men were not allowed to vote either until about 10 years before women gained the right? Are you saying that patriarchy existed for those 10 years?

The idea of women wanting to break free of an evolutionary pattern, and society not wanting them to break free created the patriarchy.

And what of men who want to break free of our evolutionary pattern of providing for women? Feminism makes certain that my tax dollars go to provide for women but not for men like me. Does that mean that they have created a Matriarchy by refusing to let me break free of providing my hard earned compensation to women?

[+]girlwriteswhat -38 points-37 points-36 points 13 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

Even so, there were female masters in blacksmithing, silversmithing, butchering, and other trades, at least as far back as the 15th century in England. Women were typically not barred from any of the European guilds. However, the education process in the trades was onerous (involving years of indentured servitude as an apprentice starting in childhood, then years travelling as a journeyman often into the mid-twenties), and few women were interested in blacksmithing if it meant not marrying (which it probably did). The rosters of guilds reflected that--usually 1-2% women.

Education (reading/writing/math) is another silly thing feminists bring up. Up until the Renaissance, a lot of noblemen and kings couldn't be bothered to learn to read. It was a waste of time when kingdoms were won or lost by the sword, and you could pay someone to do your reading for you. One of the (hypothesized) reasons Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any ethnicity was that in Europe, Jews were barred from many avenues to wealth/power that relied on physical strength, and the most successful of them (ergo, able to support the largest families) earned their success through white collar work, which takes brains, and the least successful were the least intelligent. Different selection pressures create different average traits in different demographics. This is not rocket science, though for feminists it might seem like it.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]girlwriteswhat -13 points-12 points-11 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]blarghargh2 31 points32 points33 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Captain_Biotruth17 points 13 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]blarghargh2 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]girlwriteswhat -10 points-9 points-8 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]blarghargh2 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]girlwriteswhat -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FizzPig 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]baconcraft -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]girlwriteswhat -7 points-6 points-5 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]yosemitesquint 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CriticalCold 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -16 points-15 points-14 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]girlwriteswhat -14 points-13 points-12 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -23 points-22 points-21 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CaptSnap 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Im sorry but youre just completely full of politically correct shit. I know school is out so we arent getting some of the best responses and maybe you were actually taught this in the feminist run schools but in the interest of truth....come on.

They weren't allowed to go to school

Actually there was never a time in the US at least where women werent educated. Even in ancient fucking Rome were little girls educated. Like all things education followed more closely to class than gender with the upperclass of either gender generally being highly educated. Ancient Egypt was just as egalitarian...maybe even more so. Even ancient babylon (which is as far back as writing goes) educated women. Before that Im not sure what the hell humanity knew that you had to be taught in order to know.

Do you have some kind of source of some countries in the west where they werent allowed to be educated? And how they were excluded by gender AND NOT BY CLASS? because everytime I go to look it up I find girls were educated as much as boys were, unless they were fucking poor then they were sold. Except unlike boys they generally werent disposable.

Also they got passed off into marriage and babies at extremely young ages, like as soon as they got their period. This stunted their development and gave them huge responsibilities at young ages. This would drain their energy and ability to be creative.

You act like they would have not gotten pregnant if they hadnt gotten married. As though back in the past teenagers wouldnt be having sex outside of marriage and thats some new modern bullshit. Lets put that in perspective: Do you remember how much everyone laughed at schools "Abstinence only" sex ed? At some point in the 90's schools actually taught kids that the best way to prevent pregnancy and std's was just to abstain. Yeah...its that fucking ludicrous and of course it had absolutely no effect on teenage pregnancy or anything because young people are NOT going to abstain.

Young people, including women, were GOING to have sex. Marriage was society's way of insuring women would be cared for. Women werent oppressed into marriage... women were protected and provided for during a period of time where they would be weak and dependent. Im not sure you can imagine living in a time where if you got sex you would get pregnant and if you werent married then you may well fucking die but if you cant imagine a world like that (it was seriously just like 50 years ago) then youll just have to trust me when I tell you that a woman really really wanted to be married and wouldnt have sex until she was married....seriously, HUGE DEAL.

If you want to go way back, this probably started in the pre-human era where we were basically animals, and once the woman had babies she had to stay and take care of it, rather than go out and explore and be innovative. Men would become physically stronger from hunting and exploring and etc etc. the loop goes on forever.

You start off right and its true women had babies and were completely dependent on SOMEONE else to take care of them and its fair to guess this (and the advent of agriculture) is where the gender roles started. It is just biology. But then this:

Men would become physically stronger from hunting and exploring and etc etc. the loop goes on forever.

Men are just stronger. Have you ever wondered why almost all sports involving strength are segregated by gender? Looked up the match between Karsten Braasch vs each of the Williams sisters. The Williams sisters made some boast that they could beat any man not in the top 200 so Braasch takes them up on it. He plays a round of golf, smokes, and then schools them. Despite being 15 years older than them. Im not trying to brag, both genders are capable of truely amazing things but its dishonest to say women, in general, could develop to be anywhere near as strong as men, in general.

Finally, I dont really like how you imply it could have gone any other way. I feel thats really disingenuous. So youve got two people in a household. To provide for a household the work is manual labor and it is really physically taxing. Now this is true for literally tens of thousands of years. For all of human existence this has been the rule and not the exception. Of the two members of the household, one member of the household makes babies and then literally squirts out food for babies like right out of her fucking body but is much weaker than the other one. The other is stronger and does not squirt out food for babies... like seriously ITS ON FUCKING TAPS on the other one. Now of these two, one of them has to plow the field (or hunt the mammoths or fight the philistines or do some other dangerous and shitty job) and the other has to take care of the babies. So of these two members, youve got the one thats literally makes the food on tap from her body or the one thats disposable. Which one do you send out into the gaping maw of civilization to be chewed up and broken so civilization can move forward another inch?

[–]toblotron 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments