An Equality Feminist, a good example of a feminist who is speaking up for the boys.

[–]Sasha_ 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, feminism is fine until 'it goes a bit too far', like having a snake living in your kitchen is safe, so long as the kids don't poke it.

Feminism has done unspeakable, and mostly unrecognised (by winder society) damage; it has destroyed the lives of women, children and - especially and mostly - men. Feminists fight to ensure that male suffering is excused, diminished and blamed on men themselves. They steal money from disabled, desperate and homeless men and weaken society by destroying families so that the state and the industrial/corporate complex can get rich and maintain control.

The state can't screw to much with a strong, stable socially-supported family. So destroy that, undermine men, get women battling them and before you know it we'll all be wage slaves chained to over-priced mortgages working in call centres or on assembly line.

[–]8nother_throw8way[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Leinadro 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]8nother_throw8way[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lumberingfeather 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]8nother_throw8way[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Not as much hate as the word "man" attracts.

This is a perspective. I, personally, would disagree with you. I don't feel like "man" is a hated word. But the real thing to keep in mind isn't, which of us is right and which of us is wrong. But why do I feel the way I feel and you feel the way you feel and how can we change that. We're both on the defensive and defensive people tend to not hear the other side too well because they're focused on defending for the attack they believe is coming.

You haven't thought this through have you.

I really don't know what you mean by that. In the 1800s. Women had little choice but any in who they married. They were handed of from their father to their husband's care. They couldn't own property, vote, hold office, of many jobs. They could be beaten and raped by their husbands with no say or help. This doesn't sound far away from slavery to me. And I'm so thankful for the birth of feminism, so I don't have to live that kind of life.

You can say that again. And feminism has NOTHING to offer, except the same tired old BS about "scrapping the Patriarchy will help men too!".

Technically feminism doesn't have to have anything to offer men. Because my definition it's just supposed to help women. BUT that doesn't mean a feminist can't care about men's rights too. And there are feminists who are working to help men's rights. Like the one in the video.

Feminism, or men's equality. Pick one.

Why? Give me one good reason it has to be one or the other. Why does it have to be men against women? Or a contest to which gender has it worse? They both have problems. We can work on both of them. We should work on both of them, together.

[–]Lumberingfeather 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]8nother_throw8way[S] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lumberingfeather 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]8nother_throw8way[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lumberingfeather 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HariMichaelson 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There are some extremists who take feminism way too far.

Yeah, like the psychopaths who wrote this;

"The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpation on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her."

Right? I mean what kind of person in their right mind could possibly say something like this? That's pretty extr- oh wait, it's the foundational document of the original feminist movement before feminism was called feminism, aka The Declaration of Sentiments. Feminism itself is extreme. There is no such thing as "moderate feminism." It's like saying you're not an extremist follower of Jim Jones, you're only a moderate.

which was a movement initially started by a man

The name was originally coined by a man, yes, but feminist ideology has been encoded into society long before the word was ever uttered. Read any version of the code of chivalry, which most often begins as "love God and revere women."

to help women achieve equal rights in a time when they were basically slaves.

Is that you, Matt Binder?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D63WoAHj4wY

This claim is so far divorced from reality that it doesn't have a hope of seeing its kids again. Hey-o!

A femme covert was still allowed to work and earn money, money which she could do whatever she wanted. It was the husband's duty to provide for her needs, and if he made her spend her own money on her own needs, that was a punishable crime. Yes, he was responsible for managing whatever estate she might have, but that was only done so because such things were seen (many would argue rightly so) as burdensome, work that the husband should do to free up his lady's time. You can agree or disagree with the principle of the idea, but you can't argue that women were slaves on the basis that their husbands were required to manage their financial affairs for them so they didn't have to.

Femme soles on the other hand, they could do whatever the fuck they liked, and they didn't even suffer the bachelor tax that unmarried men suffered back then. Slaves/chattel my ass.

We've come a long way and I think that is so awesome.

Women voting to send off men (who couldn't vote) to die in a war (that women didn't have to fight in), the white feather campaign, the terror campaigns of the suffragettes, the complete and total disregard for the arguments of female anti-suffragists that the suffragists had, the destruction of the nuclear family, the institutionalized demonization of men and acceptance of cluster b personality disorders, men's complete and total lack of parental rights, as well as their inability to abdicate parental responsibility (that alone is a good summary of feminism's approach to dealing with men and women) and the enshrining of utterly insane pseudoscience about gender and sexuality in universities that were once the envy of the world...yeah, we've sure made progress down into the pit.

I believe in feminism, but I believe also in equality for men.

Those two things are mutually exclusive. Pick one.

We should be a team.

I'm not going to help feminists do any more damage than they already have, thanks.

[–]8nother_throw8way[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This claim is so far divorced from reality that it doesn't have a hope of seeing its kids again. Hey-o! A femme covert was still allowed to work and earn money, money which she could do whatever she wanted. It was the husband's duty to provide for her needs, and if he made her spend her own money on her own needs, that was a punishable crime. Yes, he was responsible for managing whatever estate she might have, but that was only done so because such things were seen (many would argue rightly so) as burdensome, work that the husband should do to free up his lady's time. You can agree or disagree with the principle of the idea, but you can't argue that women were slaves on the basis that their husbands were required to manage their financial affairs for them so they didn't have to.

In the 1800s women had little to no say in who they got to marry. They were never allowed to stay in their own individual care as men were. They went from their father's care to their husbands. They were never allowed to own property, vote, run for political office, or apply to many job fields. Many women were also denied education(or higher education). A woman could be beaten or raped by her husband with no legal action to take. They suffered a lot of bullshit. And feminism helped them gain rights over those aspects of their lives and I'm very thankful for that.

Also why would you say men couldn't vote? Men could always vote. Also the women didn't vote to send men away to war. They just wanted to be able to vote. Is it 'War that women didn't have to fight in' or "war that women weren't allowed to fight in' you can look at it in both ways. But either way, there were many women who tried their best to aid in the war however they could. Whether it was being a nurse in war zones, or even a few instances of dressing like a man to fight in the war (which has happened). Isn't it great that feminism helped fight for the right to have women join men in the army? Also, you can't deny back in the old days it would be pretty impractical to send large numbers of women to war because they didn't always have birth control and they had a lot more babies and a lot younger and someone had to watch the children. And sense men can't breastfeed... I'm not agreeing with the draft. I think it's shit. But women didn't decide that stuff, we weren't in the white house remember?

I agree that men have a lot of injustices. I believe I already said so. But if you think only men face issues, then you're being very self absorbed. Everyone one this earth has issues. Stop making this a contest.

I don't have to pick feminism and men's rights. I believe in equal rights for men and women. So :P

Well if you refuse to help "feminists" would you at least support women's rights? It's a bit hypocritical to care about one and not the other.

[–]HariMichaelson 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In the 1800s women had little to no say in who they got to marry. They were never allowed to stay in their own individual care as men were.

Actual, literal lies.

They went from their father's care to their husbands.

Only if they wanted to marry. A woman could not be forced to marry, not even in the 1800s. A woman could not be forced to marry in the fucking medieval period. You. Are. Insane. If a woman did marry though, then yes, they entered into the care of their husbands, but that doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. As Blackstone said, the woman ceases to exist as a legal entity. Do you know what that means? Yes, it means she has no legal rights, but she also has no legal responsibilities. If she incurs debt, she doesn't actually incur debt, because she can't. Instead, her husband incurs the debt. Blackstone's commentaries on the law make this so abundantly clear that I don't even know how people are still unaware of this.

They were never allowed to own property,

Bullshit. A femme sole woman owned her own property when she became an adult.

vote,

Then why did New Jersey, decades before women got universal suffrage, deign to pass a law that explicitly forbade women from voting, a law most other states didn't have at the time?

run for political office,

Carrie C. Holly, 1894, to start with. You can go further back and find literal female royalty running England.

or apply to many job fields.

Also bullshit. Even femme covert women were allowed to work. What they weren't legally supposed to do, was maintain their own personal upkeep from their own wages. That was the job of her husband, and if he faltered in that job, he could be jailed.

Many women were also denied education(or higher education).

Women were in higher education as early as the 1400s, that we know about. Don't fall for the lies.

A woman could be beaten or raped by her husband with no legal action to take.

I guess Hue and Cry laws just never existed then? I'm starting to get tired of this.

https://www.canlaw.com/your-legal-rights/thumbrul.htm

They suffered a lot of bullshit. And feminism helped them gain rights over those aspects of their lives and I'm very thankful for that.

Throughout history, men and women have had their own social privileges and obligations. The first wave of feminism was about getting women the social privileges of men. The second wave was about removing women's social obligations. The third wave has been about increasing men's social obligations.

Also why would you say men couldn't vote? Men could always vote.

No, they couldn't. Only property-owners could vote...if you owned property, you could vote, even if you were a woman, except in some states that had started to pass specific laws that forbade women from voting, like New Jersey did.

Also the women didn't vote to send men away to war.

They absolutely did. That's what WWI was, and many of the men who went to fight that war did not have the right to vote at the time.

Is it 'War that women didn't have to fight in' or "war that women weren't allowed to fight in' you can look at it in both ways.

Do you not have to blow your own hand off, or are you just not allowed to blow your own hand off? The men who fought that war, they called it a meat grinder. They didn't want to be there. They hated every fucking second of it, and they all knew it was a stupid fucking war. "Not allowed," what bullshit...have you ever heard of the white feather campaign? Women calling any able-bodied man not in uniform a coward. It worked so well, it got hundreds of thousands of men killed because they couldn't stand to be called "coward" by a woman in public. I bet that's the man's fault, in your eyes.

Isn't it great that feminism helped fight for the right to have women join men in the army?

No, it fucking isn't. If you think it is, go find someone to hold a loaded gun to your head and scream in your face, and then tell me how great you think that experience is. Feminism would rather make women suffer along side men (force them to register for the draft too) than do something that only helps men (work to abolish the damned draft) and here we sit.

Also, you can't deny back in the old days it would be pretty impractical to send large numbers of women to war because they didn't always have birth control and they had a lot more babies and a lot younger and someone had to watch the children.

You seem to be of the opinion that I wanted anyone sent to war.

I'm not agreeing with the draft.

Isn't it great that feminism helped fight for the right to have women join men in the army?

I'm not agreeing with the draft.

Isn't it great that feminism helped fight for the right to have women join men in the army?

But women didn't decide that stuff, we weren't in the white house remember?

Don't say "we" like you speak for anyone besides yourself. You are not "women" you are one single woman. And women did decide that. Women have been deciding that men shall go and fight the wars pretty much since the dawn of our species. They might not have had official voting power, but as the female anti-suffragists well-argued, they didn't need it. They said "jump," their men asked their women what stars they wanted to touch.

I agree that men have a lot of injustices.

Yet when I talk about them, you brush them off.

But if you think only men face issues,

See, all I've done is take you at your word. I'd like for you to do the same for me.

Stop making this a contest.

Pointing to a super-powerful movement/organization and identifying them, accurately, as the cause for much of the perpetuation of said injustice is not turning anything into a contest. When I say, for example, that it is feminists who actively try to dismantle father's rights groups, I'm not turning anything into a contest, I'm telling the plain truth.

I don't have to pick feminism and men's rights.

No you have to pick between feminism and human rights, because feminism isn't about anyone's rights, not even women's rights. Of course, the fact that I have to convince you first that feminism isn't good for women's rights before you will acknowledge feminism is a problem, when they are clearly also horrible for men's rights, shows that I'm not exactly the self-absorbed one.

I believe in equal rights for men and women.

Me too, with all of the honesty of the straight statement, and the irony of the context.

Well if you refuse to help "feminists" would you at least support women's rights?

I don't believe one can be a supporter of human rights without, in part, actively attempting to dismantle feminism.

[–]Lethn 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]8nother_throw8way[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sasha_ 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The problem with your position is that your assuming that women are systematically disadvantaged; 'socially, legally, politically and economically'.

Name one, just ONE way in which this is true. Give me a single example, because I can't thing of one.

It's men who die younger, account for most suicides, are treated more harshly in courts and shot dead by the police. It's men who are 95% of work deaths. It's men who are torn to shreds by the family courts and have their children ripped from them.

Feminists don't support equality and never have. It's a shrill, greedy hate ideology. The only 'good' feminists aren't really feminists - they either don't understand their own movement or just can't bear to let go of it. But the vast majority are simply nasty, unstable bitches who love drama, an excuse for hysteria and the thrill of a witch-hunt.

What's the difference between 'MeToo' and lynching or 1990s Satanic sex-abuse moral-panics? Or the Salem-witch trials for that matter? They're all driven by hysterical women. Now they're on about mansplaining, toxic masculinity (how can an ideology that created that have the fucking nerve to comment on boys failure in school? Fuck off). Even 'man spreading' and the Duluth Model - which says male DV victims are actually asking-for-it. Or they're moaning about FGM (can't find any examples of it of course, but there must be a case here...er...somewhere...).

Rubbish. It's a hate ideology and possibly some sort of mental disorder.

[–]8nother_throw8way[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Women have been disadvantaged in those ways. Sure feminism was more in need some years ago when we couldn't vote or hold office, etc. We're doing a ton better, but we have some areas where we're still having a tough time. Even if society was equal for all of women's rights, you can still claim to be a feminist in the sense that you're just saying you agree it should be that way.

It's ridiculous to get into a 'which gender has it worse?' argument because we both have really terrible shit to deal with. You can say more men die from suicides and I can say more women attempt suicide. Also, Men dying younger is not something we have control over, it's more of a biological thing.

Yes men may have some of those problems, and I think it's really important to acknowledge them and fight to fix them. But you can't be blind to the fact that women have issues too. It's not a situation where only one gender is fine and the other is so hurt.

The 1990s satanic sex panics (which I'm pretty well aware of) were completely false allegations. That situation is so so different from the 'Me Too' situation. The Me too thing is just to bring about an awareness of how common sexual assault on women is. Not all men understand really how many women experience this and can experience this on a common basis. I've experienced assualt and pretty much every female friend of mine has as well. I'm not saying men don't experience too, that's not what the movement is about. It's just recognizing that, "hey this is a problem." It's a social movement that's saying "we're not okay with this, lets speak up and stop it."

I feel you have a lot of hate right now. I feel like that hate is partially blinding you. You're words of calling women 'bitches' and saying they're nasty, unstable, or hysterical is a very toxic viewpoint. If you hold onto that anger and feel that its you against women, then there will never be any change. For men or women.

[–]Sasha_ 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]8nother_throw8way[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I never said that women didn't face any disadvantages or inequalities, I just didn't want to get into a contest of which gender has it worse because I think that's ridiculous. Every group has some sort of disadvantage they face. I didn't want this conversation to turn that way cause to me that's not the point. The point is feminism was born in a time when women suffered a lot of inequalities, we needed feminism. It did grow and change a lot and some people took it one way and some took it another. Much like religion. Some religious people use their faith for kindness and some for selfishness and violence. I just wanted to say that not all feminists are extreme and some just believe women should have equal rights but so should men. Equalist feminists.

But if you really want me to make a list of ways females still could use feminism I can. We are still very mis-underrepresented in congress and politics. We're still fighting for rights to have a say with what we do with our own bodies (pro-choice), women have higher poverty rates, women still make less and are less likely to hold higher roles in the workplace, maternity leave in the US is ridiculous, many women don't get any pay and hardly anytime off to care for their newborns, which is bad for all of society. 1 in 3 women have been a victim of some type of violence from their partner. Women often experience 'victim blaming' which can lead to depression, suicide, women not coming forward when assualted, and being ostracized by their communities. A great example of this is in the Audrey and Daisy movie on Netflix. Theirs inequality for funds when it comes to sports for girls compared to boys. I could go on, but I think that's enough.

Even if women have perfectly equal rights I think it's fine to still believe that women deserve those rights by calling themselves a feminists. I'm not saying men don't suffer issues either, we both do. I'm not saying I support feminist who lobby specifically against men's right is a good thing.

When it comes to family court cases, I believe it should be a case by case basis. That each family is different and that they should look at the child's best welling being. I know several fathers who have full custody over their children. I'm not saying the courts are always fair, but in some cases it works out.

Women are WAY more likely to be victims of domestic violence than men. About an 85% being women and only 15 being men. An insane number of women are killed in domestic violence cases. So yeah women need more shelters than men because we have more victims. BUT men absolutely need shelters too. They still suffer at 15% and they have very very few shelters. I support building more shelters for men. I believe they should have other services as well in this regard.

Just because I consider myself a feminist doesn't mean I automatically have to agree with every action every feminists ever takes. I couldn't keep up with all that. And who would expect a religious person to give up their religion because a few extremists took it too far? This isn't rational.

[–]OnTheSlope 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]8nother_throw8way[S] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What I'm trying to say is SOME feminist might have an anti-male view points. I can't deny that they're aren't toxic feminists out there. But I'm not anti-male and many other feminists aren't either. It's like how a lot of people hate Muslims because they think they're all terrorists. Well a few are extreme and did bad things, but they aren't all like that and it's not right to condemn the whole lot of them when that's not what the religion is about.

But, I do have to admit, I'm very turned off my Redpill stuff. I love men and I'm not anti-men. But the stuff I hear from Redpill sounds very anti-women and it scares me quiet a bit. It upsets a lot of women. I've heard some men on there say that "rape" isn't real and stuff like that. Makes me shiver with disgust that people like that exist.

Part of my point is that I hear you on the injustice that men suffer when it comes to rape crisis, custody battles, men's shelters, etc. That's why I think we should work together. When men say hate filled things about women and/or feminism and vice versa we get no where.

I agree that their are men's issues that aren't being addressed and that's why I shared this video. To show that there are feminists who do care, and that we can help each other instead of fight against each other. I know not all feminists are helping men's issues. Not all men are helping women's issues. It's just the way it is. But why don't we try to change that? Let's get more men and women helping everyone.

[–]OnTheSlope 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]8nother_throw8way[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]8nother_throw8way[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure you're right in the fact that they are a minority in their behavior (sadly). I'm really hoping to have a positive equality feminism emerge.

I know some of the history of feminism. Mostly that the term feminism was created in the late 1800s by a french man. He noticed the very little rights women had. That they couldn't even speak out of the rape and physical abuse that went on in their marriage. He helped women and he created the term with the meaning that women should gain equality in social, political, legal, and economic areas.

I know feminism has evolved a lot since then. But this was it's start and it's start was pure in it's intent to help women in area's that they weren't equal. I'm sure this french man never had the intent on this movement hurting men's rights. I think feminism should go back to it's roots.

[–]putamanoutofaplane 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]8nother_throw8way[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]putamanoutofaplane 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]8nother_throw8way[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

A lot of men didn't even have to marry if they didn't want to. It was possible for them to be a bachelor or remain one for much longer than a woman. Plus marriage between men and women were very unequal. It was very common for men to find sexual relationships outside of a marriage, where a woman definitely couldn't. Men could divorce women for adultery but women couldn't divorce men for it. Many men had mistresses or visited prostitutes and their wives couldn't stop themselves from receiving STDs. Rape was allowed in marriage. Everything a women owned went to her husband for him to do with as he pleased. She couldn't even get it back after he died, with exceptions for only small paraphernalia. All children born in a marriage belonged to the husband. If they parted the husband had automatic rights to the children.

I'd be really interested to learn about men not being allowed to vote when some women could. I've never heard that. Could you direct me to that information?

In the 1880s wife beating was extremely common and only caused outrage if it was especially brutal or endangered her life(flogging only reserved for extreme beatings). It was commonly expected that a man could hit his wife when he wanted, to teach her a lesson. But yeah I guess women didn't have it too bad since they couldn't get beat with a stick that was wider than a thumb (sarcasm). If a woman decided to leave she would starve in the streets with her children so she would be stuck in an abusive household.

[–]putamanoutofaplane 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

If there are arranged marriages it goes, naturally, both ways. All traditional agricultural societies had/have arranged marriages, meaning that both men and women had/have to marry the spouse that was/is elected by the parents (if they didn't the society wouldn't have survived but let's not go there).

The bottom line, the ultimate bottom line in those traditional societies wasn't things like if some odd dude had a mistress but who could survive. Who and whose children could get enough food and who couldn't. For any culture to survive it needs to take care of the females. Those cultures or, rather, civilizations that haven't taken care can't prosper.

As for the suffrage, in many parts of the world you had he right to vote if you were rich enough. It meant that poor men had no right to vote while unmarried rich women did.

And stop reading Feminist cherry-picking history, it's not only factually wrong, it's bad for you, like as a moral being.

[–]8nother_throw8way[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I would agree that both men and women would have little say in arranged marriages and both could be miserable. But women did have fewer rights in a marriage and that was something feminism helped fix.

I agree that women need to be taken care of to have a society prosper, but I would disagree that women were taken care of fairly in many cultures. There is a bare minimum of what is expected for women to survive with their children and what is actually fair. Women just had very few choices and say in what happened to them at all in life. And to me that is really unfair and I'm glad that changed due to feminism.

I would hardly use some rich women getting to vote over poor men as a pro for women having it better than men. Some women had it better than some men, sure. A lot of men had it better than most women if you look at it the other way.

What I'm stating isn't factually wrong, well if it is then please prove it to me. I came on this forum to put something nice out. To say hey, this is a cool woman who is doing cool things. Not all feminists are like the extremists, just like how not all muslims blow buildings up. Then I'm pretty much attacked for defending the fact that I believe women should have equal rights to men. That's ridiculous. It feels like all the men here think they are the only people on this earth that suffer any problems. EVERY group of people face some type of discrimination or get left behind in some area. So if you keep telling other groups of people that their lives are perfect you're going to be pissing people off because it's not true. I don't believe men have it perfect, they have some things they need help with. But so do women, and so do trans, and so people without heterosexual orientations, and so do blacks, and hispanics, and muslims, and Jewish people. We don't have to just pick one group to have it the worst and say the others are fine. That's ridiculous.

[–]putamanoutofaplane 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]8nother_throw8way[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]putamanoutofaplane 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Men were, in fact, slaves, because they were penalized if they didn't provide for their wives (aka owners). That's a fact, too, but, earnestly, I wouldn't call them slaves.

That just was the way to organize a successful agricultural society: women had the responsibility of the household while men. being stronger, had the responsibility everything outside the house. If he didn't have the power the family could perish because he was the one, often the only one, who could put enough bread on the table.

Violence? Women who ran a household beat their servants and slaves, mothers and fathers beat their children, officers beat the men under them ... pretty much everyone was beating somebody though violence against women has "always" been rarer. Wives beat certainly their husbands, wives are after all more likely to be more violent, at least nowadays. Read The Canterbury Tales, for example. But then we got civilized.

What's, by the way, the difference between slaves and "similar to slaves"? Are you saying that the only difference between a wife and a slave was that the former wasn't legally called a slave?

[–]putamanoutofaplane 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]8nother_throw8way[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

No it didn't remain her property. The husbands got to keep the dowry and anything that was the woman's became the husbands and the woman wouldn't always be able to keep the item even after the husband's death. I suppose it's possible that we're talking about different times and different places, where the rules would change. But I'm talking about Europe in the 1800s.

You say daughters had the right for a husband. But really daughters didn't have much of a choice. In many cases they weren't allowed to provide for themselves. You're talking about it like the women had it so well cause the men had to provide for them. The women didn't get a say. If their husband beat them and they wanted to leave they would starve on the streets. When a woman doesn't have the right to provide for herself, when she's allowed to be beaten by her husband because she belongs to him, when he gets to keep the children if she did leave, when he can rape her legally as much as he pleases, that is slavery to me.

You say sons but the eldest have no rights. None of the daughters had rights. None of them were allowed to own property. If a family only had daughters, the property wouldn't go to them at their parents death, it would go to the husband of one of them. If none of them were married it would go to the next male relative like a cousin. It didn't matter if it made the women homeless, they weren't allowed to own it.

[–]putamanoutofaplane 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]8nother_throw8way[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]putamanoutofaplane 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Nowadays the state has the right to "beat", punish, you. Does that mean that we, the citizens, are not a valuable resource? Does it mean that we are slaves?

Before the modern, civilized times societies were hierarchical. Everyone and everything was under somebody. And that somebody had the right to use even violence. The idea was to uphold law and order in an - unfair - society that always was at the brink of collapsing. The system was not just - to our modern sentiments - but it was successful for a very long time.

A different kind of a society became possible in the west in the 19th and 20th century but that's another story.

Was beating wives common? The common sense says that it wasn't (if you're not a Feminist). Marriage was a common enterprise even more than nowadays. If you couldn't make it work the whole family could perish.

But I'm sure you have non-Feminist sources that say it was common. Yes? No?

[–]WikiTextBot 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]8nother_throw8way[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Wow you sure know how to twist something in a really weird way. It sounds like you're justifying violence as an okay thing to do. That you can beat someone and be justified in that action. I can't stand by that. The state punishing society for law breaking is much different from a husband hitting his wife for talking out of turn. The state is in a superior status and it's their responsibility to maintain order. But I don't believe it's right for the husband to be superior to the wife in that regard. to me they need to be equal and they weren't. The wife was thought of like a child compared to her husband that needed to be corrected(punished/beat). This to me is wrong.

Sure hierarchy existed, some seems to uphold order. But some of it is unfair and and a husband and wife shouldn't be different hierarchies they should be equal. That's why I'm a feminist, because I believe that. I'm not saying I believe women should have more rights, but they should have the same rights.

Edit: I forgot to add this link to a source describing what life was like for women in the 1800s.The first line talks about how common wife beating was.

[–]putamanoutofaplane 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Troubleshooter11 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	An Equality Feminist, a good example of a feminist who is speaking up for the boys.
Author	8nother_throw8way
Upvotes	31
Comments	48
Date	January 15, 2018 6:49 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7qlsvw/an_equality_feminist_a_good_example_of_a_feminist/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/an-equality-feminist-a-good-example-of-a-feminist.1180090 https://theredarchive.com/post/1180090

Comments