If men's oppression of women is the reason women didn't make as much of a contribution to human history doesn't that just further validate the claim that women are the inferior gender? If they weren't wouldn't they have not been oppressed?

Mimoxs · 2020-04-10T18:53:45+00:00

There is literally no one who is going to deny that women are physically inferior unless you are just delusional.

We had this thing called the agricultural revolution. This resulted in men being bigger and stronger. The person who is bigger and stronger can usually force the smaller weaker person to do what they want. Eventually this becomes large scale and the smaller weaker group is taught from day one it is their natural place so they don't fight against it.

In the rare cases in which the smaller weaker ones fight back or step outside of the prescribed role, they are made into an example for the others by being beaten, raped, publicly humiliated or sometimes killed or executed. This enforces the norm. They create religion to enforce the norm as well, that they are displeasing an all powerful deity if they do not fill their role.

You create a system of norms and laws that forces the smaller weaker group to be dependent on the larger stronger one. Even if they want to be independent, due to the social norms forbidding them from things like buying and selling goods, they cannot survive on their own. They are forced to depend on another.

Women were usually barred from opportunities that would have given them to ability to produce inventive technology or develop scientific discoveries until very recent history.

Very recent history has proven them intellectually capable.

AutoModerator · 2020-04-10T18:07:00+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

DangZagnut · 2020-04-10T18:17:15+00:00

Women were oppressed by not being able to act like men.

It would be similar to saying men were oppressed by not being able to sit at home all day parenting.

It was different roles. And because you weren’t able to jump roles, therefore oppression.

Most women had little chance to contribute anything that men value, like some invention or what not, because women weren’t in their roles. They may have invented some toy to help educate children, but the male role doesn’t value that as much as the female role might.

The female role probably didn’t care much about modifications to steam engines that made them less prone to exploding, because that wasn’t in their role.

Women aren’t inferior, they’re just different. Within their traditional role they were superior or inferior within that role. All roles have a hierarchy within them.

The “problem” is women in traditionally male roles, where they come across as inferior in a male hierarchy because, well, they happen to be inferior in a male hierarchy.

That’s why to have “equality” (haha) women have to be quota hires to succeed in a male role. God knows why they hate spending time with their families. I guess they hate children.

Which is weird because they seem to love being single mothers.

bonusfruit · 2020-04-10T18:44:48+00:00

Correct. Men oppress other men. Men rise up and fight back. Women can never win in the realm of men fighting for dominance and survival. They are at the mercy of their strongest men

Infernovice · 2020-04-10T18:49:43+00:00

It appears that the comments have devolved to circle-jerking.

But anyways to respond to your argument, your premise

It seems that in a state of nature women are quite literally oppressed by men as men are the providers and leaders of the tribe while women are the followers.

Is not true(depending on the definition of natural) for the most part, the earliest form of human societies, thus what could be considered the most natural type, are hunter gatherers, were for the most part, egalitarian Meaning women were not oppressed, and for the most part had equal power as a man. Whether or not you consider the arrival or patriarchal societies as natural or not is a matter of semantics for the most part.

SavingsStrength0 · 2020-04-10T18:59:50+00:00

No. Men and women are different. They have both contributed to the advancement of humanity. Still do. Your logic is that because men oppress women that means they are superior and that is simply not true. Men are only on top because they use violence and start wars for no reason. Women are more empathetic, and intuitive than men. Does that make them superior, as well? A man who murders his wife is superior using your idiotic logic. Also by your logic black people are inferior to whites. Nope. r/coonstown is that a way <<—

goneaway2thewind · 2020-04-10T18:09:46+00:00

"Women weren't accepted for doing something something so women couldn't something something, so its men's fault!!!"

Atlas_B_Shruggin · 2020-04-10T18:11:45+00:00

Is anyone moderating this sub reddit anymore? If you're all tired of it you can make me a moderator

2020-04-10T18:14:19+00:00

[deleted]

mangolover97 · 2020-04-10T19:05:26+00:00

If you’re speaking physically yes, and most women are aware of that. Men were able to be in power because they had the physical strength to back up what they wanted. Whereas women had to manipulate or persuade men to get what they wanted. Intellectually I wouldn’t say women are inferior to men.

LittyKitsune · 2020-04-10T19:24:09+00:00

Laws and human rights literally evolved because having every human just fight to the death to assert dominance isn't conducive to large, agricultural societies.

Basically, the method in which men could claim superiority on the basis of strength alone became obsolete. From there you get more complex social constructs justifying why women should be subservient to men (e.g. tribe x says the creator God tossed a baby at the first woman and said "good luck", women of the tribe say okay, let's go with that).

As we get further removed from might makes right reason supersedes the physical superiority element. A skinny bean pole who hadn't faced combat a day in his life could lead as long as you can convince the people he should. As the playing field leveled the only element necessary to argue why you are not inferior is basic education, ability to read, and freedom to read texts of your choosing. And as people, including women, acquired those, concepts of "natural" inferiority and superiority became/can became obsolete.

akaean · 2020-04-10T19:33:21+00:00

It seems that in a state of nature women are quite literally oppressed by men as men are the providers and leaders of the tribe while women are the followers. Logic follows that if this is the natural order of things men truly are the superior gender and by default women are inferior to men.

How are you developing your "state of nature here"? Do you see the State of Nature as John Locke? Or more like Reusseau? It doesn't matter. None of the classical constructions of the State of Nature really hold any basis in "gender roles" its more a philosophy centered around what the world would look like in the absence of any governmental agency- this includes tribal.

This leads to an interesting point about your post, which is off to an intellecutal garbage fire. When is this "state of nature" that you are discussing? When did it exist? The enlightenment philosophers all knew that there was no point of history where the State of Nature truly existed, it was a hypothetical situation that was used to make the basis for how they felt humans were, and a building block to make a society for humans.

You wouldn't be committing a logical fallacy (Appeal to Nature) so soon into your argument would you? Even if we did buy your state of nature, which you have submitted no proof for, that doesn't mean its good. In fact, Hobbes, believed the State of Nature was wreteched and wicked believed that a monarchy was the only way to save us from it.

This is based under the assumption that men provide a greater service and play a greater part in the survival of the tribe while the purpose of women is mainly reproduction and child-rearing. However, if the tribe was for whatever reason to stop reproducing and the main objective was merely to survive for as long as possible men would surely be more important than women in accomplishing that feat.

Again, here you need some citations. One area where your post falls down in, is that it assumes that everyone would agree with your claims. This isn't the case, and as the one making them, you have the burden of substantiating and carrying your substantive claims.

Looking at hunter gatherers.... would your assertions fall apart if your assumption was wrong, and that in early human societies gathering was more important than hunting in many circumstances and as such it was women who were providing a greater part in the survival of the tribe?

https://hraf.yale.edu/ehc/summaries/hunter-gatherers

I'm not sure which philosopher said something along the lines of woman's inability to be objective. Art is the field that women have equal grounds as men to produce great works. However, it's their subjectivity that prevents them from doing so. Hence, women haven't produced the fine works of art that have come from the minds of men.

There are a few things to take away. First, there is a cultural stigma attached to art, as well as acceptance. You can argue that these have been relaxed in modern day, but the truth is they were not relaxed if at all, until recently. A woman sculptor would not have had the same opportunities as Michelangelo, a woman painter would not have had the same opportunities as Monet, a woman pianist would not have had the same opportunities as Mozart.... a woman theologian would be burned at the stake while a male would revered as a saint.

My point is that you cannot compare the totality of male accomplishments when historically many of these paths only recently became available to women. Lest we be like Garry Kasparov and forced to eat our words.

2020-04-10T18:30:25+00:00

Deep down women know they're inferior to men, that's why they complain when men compete with them at the same level for careers, hobbies, sports, you name it.

You're supposed to just "get it" and let her win / give her the promotion/raise to let her feel good. Only meanies try to prove that they're better.

Visserman75 · 2020-04-10T18:36:34+00:00

Nah, you can see this even in modern society where women are completely free and encouraged to do whatever they want.

They simply refuse to go into STEM or other high achieving sections of life and refuse to work long hours. So even today you will just keep seeing men doing great things, while women rely on gender quotas and diversity hiring to get into high positons.

Comments