~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
ergHelium
[–]Tmomp 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The mainstream view of privilege misses so much. I'm sure at the time of this picture, one guy was king and some guys were nobility and never had to work, and mainstream history says men have privilege.
Meanwhile the men like this outnumber the high-class men and as many high-class women enjoyed the privilege that the high-class men got.
[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I get the point that was trying to be made here, but it seems like grasping at straws, we know men had it far worse in the days of the coal mines, wars etc, but don't forget about workhouses and cotton mills etc, history was hard on everyone.
[–]redditorriot 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Erm, I think that's entirely the point, that men had and have it hard too is largely ignored by those who believe everything in terms of male privilege and the oppression of women.
[–]Impacatus 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
What's this a picture of?
[–]Consilio_et_Animis 17 points18 points19 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's men in a mine lift. Just chickens in a giant cage really.
[–]mwobuddy 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Im going to guess an elevator for coal mine.
[–]geniice 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The internet seems to think coal mine elevator cage in belgium around 1900 although at that point coal mining would have been in decline in the country.
[–]insaneHoshi 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Isnt using a 100 (?) year old photo as evidence as male inequality the same as using 1920s voting rights as evidence for female inequality?
[–]double-happiness 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
But now women can vote while only men are really going down mines. I tried searching for evidence of women working in mining nowadays but did not really find much to speak of.
[–]insaneHoshi -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Well according to a quick google, 13% of women work in the mining industry. Plus isn't the pay as a miner decent these days and it's not crazy unsafe anymore?
[–]double-happiness 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
13% of women work in the mining industry
I think you mean of those who work in the mining industry, 13% are women. But that includes admins, IT, managers, etc. This source says between 5-10 percent of the workforce in mining is female but again doesn't specify they work as miners. IDK about the rest, not sure.
[–]cmumford 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
But I suspect that <3% of mining industry that does the dangerous work, down below, are women - just a guess. There was another thread, I believe in r/MensRights about this that had comments by men in the industry.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
In this photo alone there is a 10% women working in the mine, it doesn't mean that they are the ones doing the dangerous grunt work. The point is that whenever there was an extremely hard and dangerous job to do, it was men who did it. This is despite being told that in a patriarchy men are the privileged ones like everyone says there was 100 years ago.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's a response to the accepted-by-all premise that women we're basically slaves until women's suffrage. I'm not kidding, educated people actually believe that.
[+]geniice -15 points-14 points-13 points 10 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link
You think women didn't work below ground? While its true they didn't generaly work on the cutting face (although on some narrower faces neither did men) they were involved with things like transport. On the surface they tended to be limited to poorly paid (even by the standards of the coal mining industry) jobs with their own risks. Then well you had the mines with the "Esau" system.
[–]Deansdale 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
You seem to miss the general point, which is all throughout history it was always men who did the hardest, unhealthiest and most dangerous jobs - and women did the rest, the supplementary tasks men couldn't do for the lack of time or capacity. Women have practically never worked in hard or dangerous jobs if men were also available. This picture represents this fact perfectly. Arguing that women also did this or that thus women worked just as hard as men is worse than meaningless, it's disingenuous. Women were never "limited to poorly paid jobs", they were protected from hostile work conditions. They were pampered even at the zenith of the dreaded patriarchy. What a fucked up way of thinking it is to imagine that women wanted in on those fantastic coal mining jobs but those evil bastards (ie. men) kept them out because they wanted the "good jobs" for themselves. My god some people are dense.
[–]cottonthread 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Women (and children) were quite frequently involved in a lot of labour intensive jobs, including mining throughout history. They weren't exactly excluded from jobs where harm or toil was present and in some situations like factories they may have been more likely to lose a limb because they were smaller and more able to crawl beneath machines to retrieve or repair something.
Men tended to get harder work because we're built for it better. We build muscle more easily and the average man has far more strength than the average woman. It makes sense to use only men for things like war and construction because we're better suited to the lifting, the running etc.
Even childbearing didn't necessarily cut you any slack: "Pregnant women were expected to work right up to the birth of children and babies born within the mine surroundings wasn’t uncommon."
[–]Deansdale 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Desperate times called for desperate measures. When people were starving to death there was no other option than everybody working like dogs. Still, the general idea was always that men do everything they can, the hardest and most dangerous stuff, leaving only the rest to women and children. If men had enough time and capacity for everything women and children didn't work at all - that was the american dream for one example. You didn't say anything that would disprove this, which is only natural considering this is the truth.
I'm not saying we should be treated like royalty or given awards for the sacrifices of our forefathers but at the very fuckin' least feminists should stop lying about men saying we have oppressed women for our own benefit. That is some mind-bogglingly disgusting betrayal coming from the beneficiaries of our sacrifices. People who believe men have ever oppressed women should be ashamed of themselves for being easily duped fuckwits. The fact that so many people accept this bullshit as gospel undermines my faith in humanity.
[–]cottonthread 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link
People who believe men have ever oppressed women should be ashamed of themselves
How do you categorize things like men being legally allowed to beat their wife (as long as they didn't kill her) in the past? What about current situations in the middle east where a woman is blamed for her own rape or not allowed anywhere without a male family member or husband as an escort? Where people think it's acceptable to maim or kill a woman for dishonouring the family by not marrying who they want?
What about this?
[–]Deansdale 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
men being legally allowed to beat their wife
That there was no law against something specific it doesn't mean 1. it wasn't covered by broader laws; 2. it was socially accepted. Wife beaters were punished and/or publicly shamed even though there was no law specifically saying a husband shouldn't beat his wife. The same is true for marital rape.
The middle east is a whole new can of worms westerners know jack shit about. The mainstream media only ever talks about the gender situation in the middle east when it can be used to bash men / show women as victims. Yes, women are blamed for their rapes IF they do something forbidden by their religion that places them in a situation allowing the rape to happen, but the rapists are executed as well. It's not like men get off scot free while women are punished, it's men get punished very harshly and sometimes women get punished as well. If you look at the whole picture islam doesn't favor men over women, it's even more strict towards men, the mainstream media just forgets to talk about this so most people have a very skewed picture about the middle east. Honor killings target men as well as women, it's not some patriarchal tool against women.
Western media also forgets to talk about how muslim men are forced to fight in wars and are punished if they fail to provide for their families, things that do not apply to women.
Again, 99% of westerners know fuckall about the middle east, they only get information filtered through feminist-friendly sources and it shows in their skewed perceptions. How about this headline for a culture that is supposedly so pro-men and anti-women: Iran executed all adult men in one village for drug offences?
[–]cottonthread 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
The mainstream media only ever talks about the gender situation in the middle east when it can be used to bash men / show women as victims.
So the guardian isn't mainstream media? You just linked an article that quite clearly states they killed all the men. If they wanted to perpetuate that narrative they could have found myriad other situations that didn't involve a shit tonne of men being executed.
Yes, women are blamed for their rapes IF they do something forbidden by their religion
Oh well that's ok then /s. It's not like the rapist can't just say "she was dressed inappropriately" and be done with it.
Honor killings target men as well as women, it's not some patriarchal tool against women.
Are there any of these situations that are male only? Do you have proof that men are killed or disfigured at a similar rate to women?
How about this headline for a culture that is supposedly so pro-men and anti-women
I don't think there's enough information there - it doesn't even say how many people were in the village. Maybe the women and children there were unaware of the dealings. Maybe the women were spared because someone needs to care for the kids and they think it's the natural task of a woman to be a carer.
Saying that "yes, shit like bride burnings happen and people think women are only fit for breeding but hey, men have it hard too" doesn't really prove that the horrible things happening to the women aren't as a result of people thinking of them as less than men.
[–]Deansdale 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
Oh for crying out loud, taking my every word literally literally makes you miss the point by a mile. Did the Guardian article discuss how the mass execution of men means islam is not pro-men & anti-women? Nope. They did the opposite - they twisted the story into saying the real victims are women. The first thing you see in the article is a picture of a woman with the tagline "Shahindokht Molaverdi, vice-president for women and family affairs, said: ‘Society is responsible for the families of those executed.’" FOR FUCK'S SAKE. Men are executed by the hundreds and without wasting a single word on the tragedy itself they start talking about teh poor wymyn Hillary style.
It's the Boko Haram "bring back our girls" bullshit again, which was another case of people caring about women but not men. Tell me about how western media and western societies are not biased in favor of girls when the mass killings of boys were largely ignored but when some girls were kidnapped the entire US went into a frenzy.
Oh well that's ok then /s.
The point is not that the middle east is a good place for women. The point is that their culture is NOT favoring men over women. This means men DO NOT oppress women there - they have a culture that is harsh towards both sexes and is supported by both sexes. You only see half the picture when the media shows you how middle eastern women are treated and spins that into a narrative of how men oppress women there. It's bullshit. The media misinforms you intentionally and you don't realize that.
Do you have proof that men are killed or disfigured at a similar rate to women?
It's almost impossible to get a clear view of what's going on from western sources exactly because western sources are so biased it beggars belief. Most organizations dealing with these issues simply only care about women. If you want actual information you have to piece it together from sources that won't make this task easy, like this one. It says: "Between 1979 and 2002, 40-76 adultery/incest executions (by stoning) were recorded for both men and women. After 2002, allegedly eight men were stoned to death and one woman hanged." Also: "10-15% of executions in Iran are for rape. In many cases the rape victim settles the case by accepting compensation". I wonder how women could accept compensation if they were executed as well for being raped. Notice however that rapists are routinely executed.
Edit: See this for more information.
"yes, shit like bride burnings happen and people think women are only fit for breeding but hey, men have it hard too"
You have this skewed picture in your head because you've been systematically misinformed. The actual situation is that middle eastern men have it way worse than women, only nobody gives a fuck about them because people only care about women (and children of course). You probably should realize how absurd it is to say that although the majority of religious/cultural violence affects men it only warrants a meh "men have it hard too but the real victims are women". That's like any default news report of a natural disaster in the mainstream media: "100 dead, among them 4 women and 2 children". Those are the victims we care about, men can go fuck themselves. If you realize they use the very same mentality to report about the middle east you might understand how misinformed the public is.
[–]cottonthread 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
So I had an answer all typed out then it said your comment was deleted, then I got this message again. Weird.
taking my every word literally literally makes you miss the point
You're manner of writing came across as very declarative and serious so it seemed like that was the intention
they twisted the story
I did notice but like I said before, they could have easily found an issue like that that doesn't involved a load of dead men if they were so set on enforcing a "nothing bad happens to men" narrative.
That said, thanks for taking the time to pull up some decent resources - it's definitely interesting (albeit disturbing) reading. Do you have anything similar for acid attacks/burning?
Yeah that whole 100 dead thing sounds really annoying though I haven't noticed it so much as "An estimated 2,000 people have died, of those 30 of them were <insert your nationality here>". Maybe they do that for international issues and the women and children bit for more local stuff.
I'm not at all against reporting men's struggles by the way- that's why I'm on this sub. However, I disagree with the way some people approach them by bringing women's issues into it.
We shouldn't have to compare to women's issues or downplay them in order to make men's issues important. We definitely shouldn't be trying to prove "actually, men have it worse" - I think the people trying to bring light to men's problems by doing that are one of the reasons many people see this sub as being anti-woman. Why can't we bring up male circumcision, discrimination family courts etc. on their own merit?
[–]Deansdale 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Of course women have problems, but that doesn't mean men oppress women. (Men have problems too, does that mean women oppress men?) Feminists portray every problem women face as coming from male oppression but it's just their fake narrative. Take abortion in the US for example. Feminists say things like "men want to control women's sexuality" and so on. Which is idiotic considering lots of men are pro-choice and lots of women are pro-life. It's not a men vs. women issue, feminists only say it is because it fits their narrative, and they do the same with history and other cultures.
What I'm trying to do here is not downplaying women's issues but pointing out that those are not caused by some male conspiracy to keep women down. The majority of men go through life with the understanding that they will provide for and protect women, and this was true in the past as well since it's based on instincts. Social conditioning might weaken or strengthen this instinct but there are no societies that suppress it completely. Even in the middle east it's men who do the majority of work while women stay at home, it's men who go to war. They do have some strict rules for women but it's not a male plot to fuck them over because patriarchy.
This is an interesting video about the media's different portrayal of men and women (the good part starts at about the middle but it's not that long overall).
[–]geniice -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You seem to miss the general point,
Miners have a pretty unique place in history. There social and political impact is such that they are not a group you use to make general points. Also the last group to be made into serfs in Scotland.
which is all throughout history it was always men who did the hardest, unhealthiest and most dangerous jobs
Dalit women still empty toilets in india.
and women did the rest, the supplementary tasks men couldn't do for the lack of time or capacity.
Ah no. There was for example no particular reason that chain making ended up so female dominated. But you are writing another group out of history. Children. Very useful supplementary work force.
Women were never "limited to poorly paid jobs", they were protected from hostile work conditions.
Do you know anything about the history of rope making? Royal navy had its own rope making set-up. Originally employed men but women were cheaper see? Fibres weren't great for their lungs mind. Better still they could be far more picky about the women they employed because even at reduced rates they could still offer more than women could earn elsewhere (beyond that women were largely exluded from the dockyards until the late 1960s).
[–]Deansdale 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Miners are perfect to make this general point. All throughout history it was always men who did the hardest, unhealthiest and most dangerous jobs including but not limited to mining. Mining was (and still is) one of those tasks that were physically hard, highly damaging to your health and very dangerous - this is why it was evident beyond obviousness that men had to do it. Not because they wanted it so badly but because women were precious and men were expendable. You seem to think both men and women had mining as their dream job, but men forced women out because patriarchy. I can't describe how ludicrous this idea is.
Which is mildly disgusting, yes, but not hard, dangerous or really unhealthy. Also, why go to India for an example like this? People working in the sewage and waste industries in the west are pretty much 100% men. (Apart from the HR departments of course which are filled with women.)
There was for example no particular reason that chain making ended up so female dominated.
Forgetting for a moment that this is pure bullshit since original documents show many more men worked in the industry than women, let me guess: women did the easiest part in the entire process. Men worked in the mines and foundries, they created the wire, and then the women bent the wire pieces into chain links. But only for smaller chains because larger ones required physical strength women didn't have...
And to think that by raising a single half-assed example you thought you disproved my point... Women only worked in male jobs when there was no other option (eg. when men went to war), or when those jobs became easy enough for them through technological advancement.
I see you're using biased feminist resources of a limited scope to point out a handful of these semi-exceptions to the rule, not realizing that if you have to search for obscure bullshit like rope-making for the navy at the end of 19th century england to prove a point about general history you've already dropped the ball. 95% of women in history were the wives of peasants or craftsmen who for their entire lives did nothing but supplementary tasks - taking care of the household, the kaleyard and the kids while their husbands worked. That there was a 20-30 year period in the entirety of human history when women were exploited in the workforce almost as badly as men always were in no way proves that "women had it worse because men oppressed them". That is such a bullshit argument I sincerely can't fathom how people fall for it.
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
OK, but there are no women in the image besides the two who obviously weren't underground, and that isn't just a coincidence.
[+]geniice -11 points-10 points-9 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Given the technology of the time the time and the conditions of the pit head the image is going to have to have been posed. Claiming anything is or isn't a coincidence is thus invalid.
[–]throwthetrash15 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Even if it was posed, they don't get actors. These would have been actual workers.
[–]double-happiness 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mines_and_Collieries_Act_1842
Actually Google suggests OP's image was taken in Belgium around 1900. If you can find any evidence women were mining underground at that time I'd be interested to see it.
[+][deleted] 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]double-happiness 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
OK, but they banned that in the 1842 act, according to my link above.
the Mines Act... prohibited all females and boys under ten years old from working underground
[–]cottonthread 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah sorry, that was meant to be in reply to someone else - though the act you mention is in the UK, not Belgium. I happen to be mostly fluent in dutch and have ok french so I'll have a look. I remember reading about the act being breached a few times though.
Also "Lord Ashley deliberately appealed to Victorian prudery, focussing on girls and women wearing trousers and working bare breasted in the presence of boys and men which "made girls unsuitable for marriage and unfit to be mothers". Such an affront to Victorian morality ensured the bill was passed." - they didn't do it because women are poor fragile things, or they cared more if they died from it; they did it because of scandalous lewdness or something. I'm not sure this really fits in with the point OP was trying to make.
Edit: I found a few references to a change in the law involving women in mines e.g. Un métier "multisexe" but not the law itself. Will keep looking
Edit 2: Most of the information in dutch refers to the netherlands instead of Belgium, for example Here it mentions that children under the age of 10 were forbidden from mine-work in 1874 (nothing about women). It's probable that being neighbours they had similar laws and culture but I've yet to find concrete proof. It's also worth noting that Belgium is a relatively young country and this may have had an impact on the setting up of laws etc.
Edit 3: Acoording to this article "Tegen het einde van de 19 eeuw was de weerstand tegen vrouwenarbeid groot. Het verhinderde vrouwen bij het vervullen van hun ‘natuurlijke' taak als moeder en echtegenote en werd gezien als oorzaak voor ongeletterdheid, zedenverval en kindersterfte." - That is to say near the end of the 19th century people were pretty against women working - it was thought to prevent them from carrying out their natural task as mother and spouse and was considered a source of illiteracy, decline in traditions and infant mortality.
It seems like this attitude may have also led to a ban on women in the mines but it's proving pretty difficult for me to dig up a record of the actual law. I think it's safe to assume that at least the attitude was similar to that in the UK leading up to the collieries act.
I think I'm going to have to let this one lie. My knowledge of french isn't good enough to effectively follow it up on that front and the history of belgian laws is pretty sparse on the dutch/flemish side of things. Maybe I can get something from a library book or visit an actual mine but I won't have time in the near future.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You really thought you'd sound smart here, didn't you?
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]Tmomp 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]redditorriot 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Impacatus 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Consilio_et_Animis 17 points18 points19 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mwobuddy 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]geniice 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]insaneHoshi 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]double-happiness 8 points9 points10 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]insaneHoshi -5 points-4 points-3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]double-happiness 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]cmumford 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]geniice -15 points-14 points-13 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[–]Deansdale 13 points14 points15 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]cottonthread 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Deansdale 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]cottonthread 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Deansdale 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]cottonthread 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Deansdale 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]cottonthread 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Deansdale 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]geniice -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Deansdale 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[+]geniice -11 points-10 points-9 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash15 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]double-happiness 5 points6 points7 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]double-happiness 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]cottonthread 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link