funny how feminism works. if he doesn't defend himself he is a coward...if he does defend himself, he is a sexist because men shouldn't ever hit women. it's a horrible and shameful crime for a man to hit a woman...but women claim to be equals
That's what it ostensibly used to be. An objective long since achieved and well surpassed in North America and other "western" countries.
And "in a masculine society"? Are you telling me that if women had done the vast majority of work in building society, we wouldn't live in a /feminine/ society?
i'm all about equal rights. what i am strongly against is one group of people thinking they are better than another group of people. we are all here together stuck on the same planet. and this planet is too heavily populated for us to step on each other to get ahead. we are either going to have to evolve by cooperating and coexisting peacefully or risk going extinct
well, we would. evolution has shaped men to be physically superior, with more muscles and stronger bone mass. so when most of what was important, such as tilling the fields, or mining, or other manual labor, it fell to men. and thus came a sexual divide. plus, if the family had a child, the woman would have to stay with it. she is the only one who could feed it. anyway, now, those previous requirements of men, can be fulfilled by women. either way, lolness, i agree.
I'm just saying there's a perfectly valid reason for it to be a "masculine society", because men built it. On top of that, they primarily built it for the comfort of women. Suddenly changing the infrastructure could conceivably lead to the collapse of society, meaning it would have to be built back up again.
Like, you can't suddenly take down the brick walls of a building and replace them with unbreakable glass, you have to tear the whole building down and rebuild it.
At that point, do you think it would be something totally easy that women could do on their own, or even help with?
Really? Women have always been more privileged? Then how come women couldn't even vote in the United States until 1920? How come for thousands of years they've been treated like property in many cultures (including western culture). How come it's only been in relatively recent times that a man raping his wife even became illegal?
Women were voting before 1920, it just became a guaranteed right in the constitution in 1920. Some states allowed women to vote more than 50 years before that.
On top of that, don't act like all men were allowed to vote (they've never had the right, in the US) for centuries before that. Wyoming gave women the right to vote in 1869, a mere decade (give or take a few years) after all men were finally allowed to vote.
Yes, there have been times and places women have been treated like property, but rarely in european-descended societies, and not to the degree of middle-eastern societies. In Euro-societies, women (wealthy ones at least) have for the most part, maybe not had any, or many, civil rights, but they've lived pampered lives, not having to work, being able to go out, go shopping, spend their husband's earnings (when it wasn't deemed "low class" to do all that oneself rather than let servants do it) and socialize.
Women in families of lower wealth didn't have all that privilege, and generally had to work alongside their men.
As for a man raping his wife, that's shitty behavior, of course, but with the passing of that law, women no longer had any responsibility to actually provide anything to a marriage. For all the time before that, the only things women were actually expected to provide were sex and children, and keeping the home, in exchange for a roof over their heads and food on their plates, clothes on their backs, protection from danger, protection from being required to perform hard labor, money to spend, and so on.
In other words, the men shouldn't have **ped their wives, but by all social conventions, they shouldn't have had to, either.
So some states let women vote before 1920. So what? You're missing the point, because they weren't allowed to vote nationwide, in all the states, until 1920.
So some rich women lived pampered lives. Again, you're missing the point. Those were a tiny fraction of all the women on a given country. You're trying to find some rare exceptions as if that invalidates my broader point.
As far as your last point, I really hope I'm misunderstanding you, because it sounds like you're saying that man **ped their wives because otherwise they couldn't get and sex or children?
Re-caption this meme
And "in a masculine society"? Are you telling me that if women had done the vast majority of work in building society, we wouldn't live in a /feminine/ society?
Like, you can't suddenly take down the brick walls of a building and replace them with unbreakable glass, you have to tear the whole building down and rebuild it.
At that point, do you think it would be something totally easy that women could do on their own, or even help with?
On top of that, don't act like all men were allowed to vote (they've never had the right, in the US) for centuries before that. Wyoming gave women the right to vote in 1869, a mere decade (give or take a few years) after all men were finally allowed to vote.
Yes, there have been times and places women have been treated like property, but rarely in european-descended societies, and not to the degree of middle-eastern societies. In Euro-societies, women (wealthy ones at least) have for the most part, maybe not had any, or many, civil rights, but they've lived pampered lives, not having to work, being able to go out, go shopping, spend their husband's earnings (when it wasn't deemed "low class" to do all that oneself rather than let servants do it) and socialize.
Women in families of lower wealth didn't have all that privilege, and generally had to work alongside their men.
As for a man raping his wife, that's shitty behavior, of course, but with the passing of that law, women no longer had any responsibility to actually provide anything to a marriage. For all the time before that, the only things women were actually expected to provide were sex and children, and keeping the home, in exchange for a roof over their heads and food on their plates, clothes on their backs, protection from danger, protection from being required to perform hard labor, money to spend, and so on.
In other words, the men shouldn't have **ped their wives, but by all social conventions, they shouldn't have had to, either.
So some rich women lived pampered lives. Again, you're missing the point. Those were a tiny fraction of all the women on a given country. You're trying to find some rare exceptions as if that invalidates my broader point.
As far as your last point, I really hope I'm misunderstanding you, because it sounds like you're saying that man **ped their wives because otherwise they couldn't get and sex or children?
<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6564767/Men-face-discrimination-women.html"></a>