TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

"The Myth of Pervasive Misogyny" - Quillette (Quillete is excellent news source. From a staff of only 6 PART TIME staff it gets over 1,000,000 unique visitors a month [old stat that has since gone up several hundred percent]] - MRA is not just MRA stuff, sites and people like this are also MRA.

mhandanna

December 17, 2020
31 upvotes
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
https://quillette.com/2020/07/27/the-myth-of-pervasive-misogyny/
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title "The Myth of Pervasive Misogyny" - Quillette (Quillete is excellent news source. From a staff of only 6 PART TIME staff it gets over 1,000,000 unique visitors a month [old stat that has since gone up several hundred percent]] - MRA is not just MRA stuff, sites and people like this are also MRA.
Author

mhandanna

Upvotes 31
Comments 16
Date December 17, 2020 1:31 PM UTC
(5 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/kexhfx/the_myth_of_pervasive_misogyny_quillette_quillete/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/the-myth-of-pervasive-misogyny-quillette-quillete.1062310
https://theredarchive.com/post/1062310
Red Pill terms in post
MRA
Top posts by mhandanna

YES! MRA's fighting back in Kenya - UN/WHO is forcing men in circumcision. Due to resistance it is now shifting to non consensual circ of infants - In Philippines 70% of boys get PTSD (Circs are done IN PUBLIC age ~10 - see paper and 40% in one cohort were infected)

5114 upvotes
December 5, 2020
/r/MensRights

'Boys underperform in schools because we look after their wellbeing less' - we split boys and girls up in schools talks.... we tell the girls about self confidence, STEM, body image... we tell the boys not to be sexist misogynist rapists

4224 upvotes
December 11, 2020
/r/MensRights

Feminsit Kindergarten teacher finds Legos are good for cognitive development in young children and so BANS boys from playing with them in order to "close the gender gap" - also OECD study shows teachers mark girls higher for identical work

3288 upvotes
January 7, 2021
/r/MensRights

Teachers mark girls higher for IDENTICAL work to boys (OECD study). Furthermore, a boy will receive 1/3 higher grade in reading tests if the techer does not know he is a boy (OECD) From kday 1 of early yers education they also grade boys lower despite them objectively getting higher test scores

3250 upvotes
December 12, 2020
/r/MensRights

This is a great counter arguement everytime someone here posts men kill etc. I am suprsised I never thought about it! The number of women who save mens lives at risk to their own lives (e,g, firefghters, moutain rescue, milatry, every day hero) is almost negligble compared to men

3204 upvotes
May 30, 2020
/r/MensRights

"Prostate cancer now kills more people than breast cancer, UK figures reveal" - A common feminist lie is that men dont die of prostate cancer and die of other things, hence one of reasons its funded less... this is false... more men actually die of the disease than breast cancer

2864 upvotes
January 9, 2021
/r/MensRights

"Since 1980, there has been a 71% increase in the number of boys who say they don’t like school...for the first time in U.S. history, boys are getting less education than their fathers." - Extreme anti male bias in schools and feminist teachers adding up

2777 upvotes
January 15, 2021
/r/MensRights

For every 1 woman in Wales, £3.44 is spent by the government on womens groups. For every 1 man, £0.04 is spent. Remind me again which gender lives shorter, has worse health, more likely to be a victim of crime, worse educational outcomes, homeless, incarcerated, suicide, victim of hate crime, etc?

2579 upvotes
October 5, 2020
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]LacklustreFriend 9 points10 points11 points 5 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

This article has been posted previously here, but it's worth reposting. I'll also repost my comment on the article:


It's a great article but at the same time it can't help fall victim to the very thing it's criticising.

For a long time, women in the West were treated as property

Ironic, given at the start of the article they write:

In fact, this claim is made with such frequency, and is so rarely challenged, that it has become part of the Left’s catechism of victimhood, repeated by rote without a second thought.

I'm also reminded of the often used quote from the early socialist Mary Ritter Beard's Women as a Force in History:

[I]t seems perfectly plain that the dogma of woman’s complete historic subjection to man must be rated as one of the most fantastic myths ever created by the human mind.

[–]qemist 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Historically the West was always anomalous in how well it treated women. Monogamy is essentially a Western invention: the Middle East, India, China, and most of Africa practised normative polygyny until the era of forceful contact with the West, or still do.

[–]Skirt_Douglas -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

So there was never a time when women were treated like property because Mary Ritter Beard said “Nuh uh”?

Why is an evidenceless claim by one person compelling?

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

The burden of proof rests on the one making the claim. There is essentially no evidence that for the claim that "women were treated as property".

[–]SchalaZeal01 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Women as a group no, slave women yes.

Children yes, so women when minors...by their own parents, often the mother.

[–]Skirt_Douglas -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

So you would be comfortable claiming women in Athens in 500BC had just as much rights as women most of the western world?

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Greek empire was based on slave labour, so people in general didn't have rights. Of course women had less rights than today but so did men. If you could go back in time and choose to be a random man or woman, you're more likely to have an ok life if you choose women

[–]Skirt_Douglas 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You do have a solid point, the past is a little too murky to have any certainty toward such statements, but it could be true. The thing is, the spirit of this argument isn’t really about whether “women would be okay” or not, it is about their ability to have any sort of legally recognized agency outside of their husbands or fathers control. The woman’s movement wasn’t about “being okay”, it was about equal rights and protections under the law.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

people in general didnt have agency though. the laws sound harsh today because in our world women have a myriad of safe, clean, non-physical jobs to get into and support themselves. most of history was not like that, it was by the toil of the man that a family could stay alive. of course women and kids chipped in but the man did the heavy lifting. ultimately it was his responsibility to take care of the household. you might like the book "the priviledged sex", it even talks about Greek/Roman times specifically

[–]SchalaZeal01 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You said "were property". Prove to me women could be sold, killed in impunity by their owner or that doing anything to them was 'not a crime', because being a woman was the equivalent of being a slave.

Children are used as levers in custody/divorce negotiation, and can be spanked in many parts of the world (completely legally, against their will), regardless of earning the punishment. That's already more than the rights over women.

[–]Skirt_Douglas 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Neither I nor the writer of the article claimed women were literally property in the eyes of the law, the claim is that they were treated more like property than an actual human with agency, which I think is a perfectly fair point. When people say “Women were like property”, they are usually talking about the legal doctrine of coverture, the system in which a woman’s legal personality is subsumed by her husband.

Wikipedia has a quote by William Blackstone describing the doctrine in his words:

By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture. Upon this principle, of a union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities, that either of them acquire by the marriage. I speak not at present of the rights of property, but of such as are merely personal. For this reason, a man cannot grant any thing to his wife, or enter into covenant with her: for the grant would be to suppose her separate existence; and to covenant with her, would be only to covenant with himself: and therefore it is also generally true, that all compacts made between husband and wife, when single, are voided by the intermarriage.

*In the most pure version of the traditional English common law, rules included the following:

*Upon marriage, all property of the married woman became property of her husband instead, which the husband had sole authority to manage. A wife's earnings were her husband's property and not her own. But, trusts could be established by third parties (often a father or uncle) for the benefit of a married woman that did not become a husband's property, and her blood relations would often give a woman gifts that in the case of personalty were not always in the full control of the husband.

*A married woman could not enter into binding contracts except for "necessities", and could not enter into executory contracts (i.e. contracts to be performed in the future).

*There was no criminal liability for offenses other than murder committed by a husband against a wife or vice versa (e.g. rape and domestic violence of a husband directed at a wife was legal).

*A husband had a right to physically discipline his wife or to hire a third-party public official to do so on his behalf and many local governments had an official whose responsibilities included physically disciplining wives at a husband's request for a scheduled fee. Adultery was a crime and wives were generally the ones most likely to be prosecuted for it.

*A wife was legally obligated to maintain her domicile with her husband and could be legally compelled (with third-party assistance if necessary) to return to it.

*There was no civil liability between spouses who were one person under the law (i.e. spouses could not sue each other in court). This changed mostly in the mid-20th century. But, a husband was often held to civil liability for the acts of his wife to a similar extent to the liability he would have for the acts of his children or his dogs and livestock.

*Wive could not (and still cannot in most circumstances) testify against their husbands in court on any matter.

*A lawsuit of a wife against a third person would generally be brought by the husband either on her behalf or in cases such as personal injury suits for "loss of consortium" (a legal right of the man to companionship and service from his wife).

*Wives generally had no right to inherit from their own families (at least for real property, inheritance of personalty in early common law England was vested in the Church of England, another part of the common law not carried over to the U.S.), and spousal inheritance rights were governed by principles of curtsey and dower (often leaving a surviving spouse a life estate in property, rather than ownership of it).

*Women, in general, could not vote or run for public office or serve on juries or be drafted to serve in the military.

*In the early common law era, divorce could only be secured by legislation, not by a court. A wife could, however, apply to a court for "separation from bed and board" that would leave the marriage intact, but would allow her to live at a different domicile and to have her husband compelled to support her with what amounted to alimony. This was available on grounds comparable to early 20th century fault based divorce.

*Custody of children and full authority over them in the event of a dispute was generally vested in a husband.

*Children born during a marriage were conclusively presumed to be a husband's children even if this was highly implausible as a matter of fact, and children born outside of marriage were illegitimate and had no legal rights at all vis-a-vis their fathers.

Your point that women were not literally recognized as equal to property still stands, I will concede to you on that, it’s not literal, but to focus only on this misses the point. When people say “women were like property” they are saying “under coverture, women lost so much legal agency that they were pretty fucking close to being property (in some rare instances, wife selling actually did happen btw.)

So yeah, instead of saying “women were like property”, perhaps we should be saying “women were like children.” It just feels a little bit pedantic and dishonest that you would deny the comparison outright when the comparison is definitely close enough to make the point that it was an unjust destruction of women’s agency.

[–]SchalaZeal01 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

*Wive could not (and still cannot in most circumstances) testify against their husbands in court on any matter.

You can, but you can also refuse. Same for husbands.

When people say “women were like property” they are saying “under coverture, women lost so much legal agency that they were pretty fucking close to being property (in some rare instances, wife selling actually did happen btw.)

Most people have no fucking idea what coverture is. And when someone on twitter says 'women were property' they quite literally mean it.

Also there are exceptions to coverture. You can own property, you can keep your money, your husband is liable for your crimes. And inheritance shit is rich people's problem.

You know most people can at best hope to inherit the familial house...if it even exists and their parents are rich enough to have paid the mortgage (or they inherit a debt)? Not millions worth in investments and companies holdings.

How many people were landowners in 1800 as a population ratio?

definitely close enough to make the point that it was an unjust destruction of women’s agency.

Feminism is the destruction of women's agency, where women cannot do evil, but need to be protected from omnipresent evil natural disasters, omnipresent evil misogyny, omnipresent evil discrimination against women, and have tons more services to help them financed from taxes, that men have no access to. Including sex-specific scholarships. Scholarships reserved for men is a very niche thing in comparison.

[–]Skirt_Douglas 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Most people have no fucking idea what coverture is. And when someone on twitter says 'women were property' they quite literally mean it.

Sure, maybe. Not sure why randos on Twitter are significant though.

You know most people can at best hope to inherit the familial house...if it even exists and their parents are rich enough to have paid the mortgage (or they inherit a debt)? Not millions worth in investments and companies holdings.

What’s a bigger number, a house, or zero? Just because a house isn’t a million of something, doesn’t mean being entitled to a house is still more than being entitled to nothing.

How many people were landowners in 1800 as a population ratio?

Irrelevant, there is more to inherit than just property.

Feminism is the destruction of women's agency, where women cannot do evil, but need to be protected from omnipresent evil natural disasters, omnipresent evil misogyny, omnipresent evil discrimination against women, and have tons more services to help them financed from taxes, that men have no access to. Including sex-specific scholarships. Scholarships reserved for men is a very niche thing in comparison.

This opinion is subjective at best, and completely irrelevant to the conversation.

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

Why is an evidenceless claim by one person compelling?

Laughs in Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and other world religions.

[–]mhandanna[S] 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Many feminists and progressives argue that the West is plagued by pervasive misogyny. In fact, this claim is made with such frequency, and is so rarely challenged, that it has become part of the Left’s catechism of victimhood, repeated by rote without a second thought. The only real question is how powerful and pernicious the misogyny is. Real-world data, however, suggest a different narrative, complicated by the fact that men have worse outcomes in many domains. For example, they are much more likely to be incarcerated, to be shot by the police, to be a victim of violent crime, to be homeless.), to commit suicide.), and to die on the job or in combat than women. Furthermore, they have a shorter life expectancyand are less likely to be college educated than women. Although these (and similar) data can be reconciled with the pervasive misogyny theory, they should at least give pause to the open-minded. The best data from contemporary social science tell a rather different story and suggest that the very persistence of the pervasive misogyny narrative is itself a manifestation of the opposite: society is largely biased in favor of women.

[–]kanray86 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

this article should be read in every school in america

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter