"Women were oppressed in the past, therefore it justifies the plight of young men today."

I find that I run into this argument a lot when discussing men's issues.

I don't really know how to handle this. So far I have tried a few strategies.

A. Acquiescing the point

Usually adding, "does that justify prejudice against males today?"

The results are fairly lukewarm at best, and it makes everyone feel uncomfortable.

B. Challenging the point

What ends up happening here is a lot of anger and bitterness. The person giving the point, usually a woman, seems to bristle, get angry, as though she actually lived in that time (which of course she did not).

If I challenge, I usually ask, "how were women oppressed?"

The first answer is almost always Voting Rights. This almost always goes unchallenged.

But really, the truth to this is a longer and more complicated. Most people don't seem to realize that 100 years ago, in Canada anyway, most people did not have the right to vote. The history on this is complicated and differs from region to region, and this usually bogs down the entire conversation. People start pulling out their phones and stuff. I'd rather avoid this.

Voting rights were generally tied to property rights. In Canada, in 1917, only 1 in 5 men had the right to vote. In order to entice more boys to go to war, voter's rights were extended to those who signed up for the army (women got the right to vote a year later).

That point never goes unchallenged when I have brought it up. It is always a major point of contention.

I often ask the rhetorical question: "Would you rather go to war and die face down in the muck in a ditch? Or not have the right to vote?"

Incredulously, the answer I usually get is, "oh well, at least men had the right to choose."

Which... I don't even know how to respond to that. I frankly think that is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard in my life. I don't even know where to begin with that.

The correct answer of course should be, "I don't want to go to war. Especially WWI, which is literally as close to hell on earth as we can possibly imagine."

Yet somehow, that point rarely ever gains any traction. ("It was their choice to go to a war that MEN started anyway.")

After that, the conversation invariably goes to "women were property of their husband".

Now first of all, is that even true? Does that depend on the region or...?

Second, what does that even mean? On some level when two people enter into a marriage contract, do they not somehow "belong" to each other? Do women "own" men when they enter into a marriage agreement today? (There is some argument to be made here about divorce and custody rights for men).

Thirdly, men owned other men too. And wives of men owned other men (slaves) too. Are we forgetting that men were slaves too?

Should we even go down this rabbit hole? Every time we do, it completely derails the conversation, and everyone sitting at the table looks guilty and embarrassed. Which is not the intended effect.

As you can see, Option #B opens up a veritable can of worms that usually ends up derailing any productive conversation we were having before.

C.We weren't even living at that time

This should be the end of the argument right there. But for some reason, it never seems to hit the mark with people.

I usually say something like if we were living in that time, and I agreed that there was a gender imbalance in society, I hope that I would help. I'm a person who is all about equal rights. I hope that I would aid on that front whenever possible.

But we're not living in that era. And I have absolutely nothing to do with that. Why am I responsible for questions of the past?

"Well, you're not. But because it happened (unchallenged), it justifies advantages for women, and oppression of men today. The pendulum."

The conversation usually fizzles after this, as most people generally agree with this sentiment.

Conclusion:

And if we choose Option #A and acquiesce the point, we cede the moral high ground. If we choose Option #B, we open up a more complicated and convoluted conversation from which there is no turning back. If we choose Option #C, it usually ends the conversation without anything productive coming out of it.

All have the desired effect that a feminist is trying to achieve, which is silencing through intimidation.

It might be stated that this is Feminism's greatest trick of all - changing historical truths, then pushing the narrative in our education system. By making women victims of the past justifies advantages they have today, even at the expense of boys who had absolutely nothing to do with that oppression.

Tl;dr

How do you guys deal with the argument: "Women were oppressed in the past, therefore it justifies advantages for women today. Even if that means at the expense and future oppression of boys."