Why women were opressed in all societies during all history until 50 years ago?

People generally mean "having less rights" when they say opressed, which is undeniably true. I can tolerate some militant anti-feminist prick, but once they start pretending women were never treated as lesser people, i think theyre idiots.

Why do you act as if going to work and not being oppressed are the same thing? Are you some kind of scumbag or something?

>"having less rights"

So...what rights are we talking about? The ones invented by Americans in 1776? The ones in Medieval Switzerland in the year 980 AD?

fucking lesbians

>women went to work precisely when it was economically necessary for them to be, when the wars had taken all of the men away.
Except they always worked... the worked in the fields during the middle-ages, they worked in the shops and as aids for artisans in the modern era, they worked in the factories during the industrial era, alongside children and others poor men, they worked in the mines, they had their arms and legs hacked off by machines and died in the same factories.

You are being fed bourgeois's lies about how all women were following the bourgeois lifestyle... except many women were poor, hell most of them were, just like the men, so they worked.

>Why

Because women were seen as inherently inferior to men in most things, and men treated them accordingly.

>successful matriarchy

I don't know about that, but there have been several successful female rulers.

>were seen as
Probably more than observation

As some others have already said, it's not that women were oppressed in all societies in all of history (though that's not to say they enjoyed the kinds of rights they do in Western societies today).

It's more accurate to say that women of the privileged class of the major cultures that have survived and thrived up to the present were oppressed in the sense that their rights and social restraints were far greater for them than their male peers, while lower class women - while not exactly equals either - saw fewer gender-based restrictions and pressures.

This is because, at least in Europe and the Middle East, upper class culture was heavily militarized due to their origins as a military elite and Hellenic influences in law and religion.

It all began with the Roman emperor Patriarchus. Ever since then women have been oppressed by EVIL men. Pic related, it's Patriarchus himself.

Women were never oppressed.

It's a very strange kind of 'oppression' where the 'oppressor' is expected to be a disposable provider and protector for the sake of the 'oppressed'.

The emergence of a post industial society got rid of the barriers for women in becoming productive members of the workforce.
Compare farming and HR work
/thread

>couldn't own property
>couldn't vote
>could be raped whenever and would then be treated worse/blamed for it
>could literally be raped by their spouses whenever and it wasn't even seen as a crime
>what do you mean they were oppressed

I want reddit9k to leave.

>could literally be raped by their spouses whenever and it wasn't even seen as a crime

And yet dozens of kings still found ways to not have an abundance of heirs.

>>could be raped whenever and would then be treated worse/blamed for it

Only by their spouses. Raping someone's wife or daughter in most societies resulted in death or imprisonment for the rapist. Rape has always been considered an atrocious crime, we just extend the label to more acts these days. If they lost their virginity then they would be considered less valuable as a partner, but not morally worse by any measurement.

Anyways, women had less rights , but they also had less responsibilities. Often if a women committed a crime it would be up to her husband to make things right and take the blame. It was always expected that men provided for and died for the women in their charge if necessary, where women had no such obligation to their men.The fact of the matter is that women were seen as people who needed men to protect and provide for them, just like children. And guess what, when you don't have working birth control and there are dangerous bandits out and about women do need this. 2nd wave feminism could never have never happened if women still had to risk pregnancy every time they had sex. Try getting a college degree or work full time while popping out 4 children.

Also, women's roles have not been static. In the medieval period the nuns who owned convents had as much power as a normal male land owner, Queen Isabella overrode King Ferdinand's authority entirely so to get the country to crusade, a woman had a monopoly over the beer industry in England for a time, Hildegard of Bingen was the Pope's trusted adviser and Christine De Pizan was a lone widow who was the most popular writer in Europe during her time. The valorization of the Virgin Mary lead to a more elevated place for women in general. If anything things moved backwards for women come the enlightenment, women did much better under personalistic feudal systems than they did under early impersonalistic and abstract liberal systems, and this probably started the initial feminist outrage.

The oppression of women is necessary for the building and the maintenance of civilization.

The perks of living in a civilized society are contingent on a constant struggle against our nature. Our primitive instincts are geared towards life in the jungle, not for civilized society, as Will Durant says in the Story of Civilization.

>Every vice was once a virtue, necessary in the struggle for existence; it became a vice only when it survived the conditions that made it indispensable; a vice, therefore, is not an advanced form of behavior, but usually an atavistic throwback to ancient and superseded ways. It is one purpose of a moral code to adjust the unchanged or slowly changing impulses of human nature to the changing needs and circumstances of social life.

Enforcing restrictions on females was part of this adjustment. Females are naturally attracted to the worst kind of men in civilized socities, aggressive and violent alpha males who display dominance through force and ritual humiliation. When these desires go unchecked, these men are rewarded by females with more sex than the others, which disincentives hard work and honesty and leads towards barbarism.

That's the natural state of mankind, the harem society where a single strong alpha male strong monopolizes all females. It was only when taboos were enforced by a priestly class which restricted the extent of female sexuality that we see civilization becoming possible, Gobekli Tepe precedes all civilizations, because the Neolithic Revolution couldn't happen if all the women were riding alpha cock carroussel.

Unfortunately, when a society accumulates too much resources, people forget this, they grant freedom to females and they just go back to their ways by choosing to have sex with the worst men. This is the cause of decadence in societies, both in the modern West and in the Roman Empire, just read the Satires of Juvenal, where he talks about senatorial women having sex with gladiators and Ethiopians.

Because until very recently in human history, might made right. And dudes are REALLY strong.

Women are property, always have been, always will be.

Band societies are pretty egalitarian. Even though sexual specialization exists, the boundaries aren't exclusive or anything. Settlement and social stratification are what brought about patriarchy, particularly when a warrior caste begins to monopolize political power and violence. States weren't forged by a bunch of dudes walking into a city and declaring themselves the leaders, there was an elaborate system of laws and guarantees that stipulated what men were getting in exchange for subordination, and a large part of that was basically the stripping away of rights from women and giving them to men, most notably in the "ownership" of the now-considerable agricultural surpluses-- it was the first real property regime.

>raping your wife
Loving every lel
Absolutely delusional

You know in Medevial England for one a woman could leave her husband if he failed a legit "penis inspection day" we're he would basically be paraded cock out in front of a bunch of "notable" women in town to see if he was lacking or not.

source: university of your ass history dept.

They weren't. If you went back in time and started saying "Oh god, how can you let him do this to you!" the women would just be confused, and maybe disgusted.

If you're asking "Why didn't men and women have the same rights?" then the answer is biology. Men are stronger (and I've read that their brains are better suited for leadership, but I'm not certain), and women give birth.

Yeah, imma need a primary source on that fampai.

Yeah, what people don't get is that it took a pretty big leap of imagination to think that women could eventually even be men's equals. It was'nt like "the patriarchy" sat around scheming on how to stop women from doing what they could, everyone was just convinced that the roles they had were the ones most beneficial to everyone involved based on what they observed, including the women.

its more like they were opressed whilr we were opressed by the jew or the lord.
now they are opressed like we males have always been, only a few of us were actually" free"
Their power is a illusion, they are part of the mase like us.
Are you telling me female monarchs werent powerfull and free?
The only real freedom is see anytime sooner is from the biologcal aspect, no.more babies in wombs.
Now question, are you trully free and powerfull when you spend all your time working and drinking and suffering from other females bullying instead of making a family?
if anything we are less powerfull as humans (the average human) because the workforce had to expand as low wages ensued

On my phone but here's one about impotence trials
bu.edu/law/journals-archive/bulr/documents/hoffman.pdf

I mean, I still think they're the most beneficial. The world has changed, so things should change a little but traditional gender roles based in biology are the most effective in my opinion.

>citation needed

This is actually really interesting to read. Thanks f a m

That's waaaaay different from what was posted above, most obviously in the fact that it only happened if a couple couldn't conceive a child. Also, the examination was medical, not a "parade in front of noble women", or in some cases an examination of virility by clerics, either by jerking off or fucking prostitutes.

Provide a citation proving that women aren't property

The details are different but the spirit and legal rights of the woman are the same
When I get home I'll find the specific one I mentioned

Besides claiming an eternity of oppression is a load of rubbish, feminism is a spook used by the upper class to gain more power while the lower classes either gain no benefit or are entirely worse off.

One example being in the past a poor family could survive on one income, now two incomes are required, and often multiple jobs for both.
This all in addition to raising children, caring for elderly family members, and what little social life there is to be had.

Prior to the industrial revolution women had it better as did men

Because Abraham realized that good pussy can control the hearts and minds of men with little effort. We needed an edge--something we could bring to the table. So we took the jobs and repressed the women

Now it's being undone, and cuckoldry is at its zenith

Oh no women have to cook and clean while men have to fight in wars and shoulders most of the labour and responsibilities!
The evil patriarchy!!!

>One example being in the past a poor family could survive on one income, now two incomes are required, and often multiple jobs for both.

This isn't the fault of feminism. In fact, you're putting the cart before the horse, there are more dual-income households now precisely because wages have stagnated over the past several decades. It's the same reason men work more overtime.

>accuse someone of putting the cart before the horse
>proceed to actually put the cart before the horse

The spirit is not the same. Not being able to have children is a huge fucking deal in a feudal society, and absolutely understandable grounds for divorce. The penis measurements, conducted medically, were based on the rough assumption that a man who was too small OR too large would impair conception, but the idea that a woman who was unsatisfied with her husband could just go and get a divorce because his dick was too small is completely inaccurate.

Women are inferior. You'd have to be delusional to believe otherwise.

Uh, no. epi.org/publication/causes-of-wage-stagnation/

>until 50 years ago
try 100

some of the most powerful heads of states ever were female monarchs.

... yeah sometimes people are infertile it was very rarely from a lack of trying

Birth control was invented. Full stop.

Don't you consider matrilineal, matrilocal societies female-dominated? There are many of these. The Minangkabau, the Negri Sembilan, the Garo, the Khasi, the Jaintia, the Mosuo, the Cham, the Rhadé, etc.

The US also has neolocal postmrital residence and a matrilineal bias in succession, it is a female-oriented culture.

Uh, yes. Your link doesn't support your idea.
You're claiming that the stagnation of incomes precipitated dual income households. Wages are the effect of labor suppy/demand, not the cause, so forgive me for expecting some evidence that price levels create movements in the supply curve.

Supposedly parts of Southern India have matriarchal societies

>precisely because wages have stagnated over the past several decades.
why do you think wages have stagnated?
there are many reasons but the "obligation" that women work is a big one.

>Full stop.
What about womens' suffrage in 1920

>that pic
Fuck, my sides

here's more what I was looking for
library.rochester.edu/robbins/sex-society

medievalists.net/2012/08/03/erectile-dysfunction-in-the-middle-ages-historian-examines-medieval-impotence-cases/

and yes impotence cases vary a lot, often with pretty sketchy reasoning like too small a dick or too large.

>Why they let

Why did the ants let me stomp their ant hill?

Are children oppressed because they don't have voting rights?

youtube.com/watch?v=e0A5vzGMQr8

because they have no will to power

More people working causes a downward pressure in wages because the wages are spread out among a larger group of people, who are working more labor-hours total. It's not just vanishing into the aether. However, total compensation has still decreased, which is what people mean when they're talking about stagnant wages.
epi.org/publication/understanding-the-historic-divergence-between-productivity-and-a-typical-workers-pay-why-it-matters-and-why-its-real/

Women are the True Power of Society. Men are Useful Idiots who break their own backs while building things for their Masters.

Not all societies. Tibetan women were pretty empowered in certain times.

When women flooded the workforce due to 2nd wave feminism ideology and the denigration of traditional femininity by academia, the media and the government, employers now had twice the workers to work with. This meant that they could get away with cutting wages and benefits because there was so much more competition for jobs than before.

t. Amanda Fattington

>More people working causes a downward pressure in wages because the wages are spread out among a larger group of people, who are working more labor-hours total.
I suggest you put down epi.org and start reading about basic economic models.
When the labor supply increases, the fall in wages is not the result of a fixed amount of wage payment being "spread out", it is the result of the fact that the great number of workers who cannot be differentiated from one another have a lesser ability to demand higher wages in any labor market large enough to be competitive.

That is actually the exact same thing, but from the perspective of the labor market instead of the employer. I'm sorry you're too easily triggered to see it.

>That is actually the exact same thing
What? No it's not. There's no "spreading". If what you were saying was true, the monopoly markets would never be able to reach equilibrium. Total revenue at any point in a demand/supply curve is not fixed.
Again, pick up a textbook.

What? Are you seriously implying that productivity is fixed regardless of employment level?

Birth control and the sexual revolution obliterated the family unit. Women were finally free.

Partial vs genera equilibrium. Short run is LS increases and W drops. Long run, LD increase. Don't get too euphoric on me now, this is a very well researched effect.

Because of evil men and their patriarchy. They is no matriarchy because there are no evil women.

Except 100% of them

Again, it's irrelevant. You can't get away from the original claim, which was that wages leads changes in supply/demand curves. That is literally putting the cart before the horse. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, and assuming you were just clumsily attempting to dumb down some other idea that was less economically offensive.

That wasn't the original claim, unless you believe stagnation is solely due to domestic labor supply increase, which is completely laughable. More people are working more hours because their labor is worth less: this is indisputable.

Not user, but did you bother to think before typing that? One could argue that yes, they are de facto oppressed, but we choose not to care. We have ages established for rights based on accountability. The society determines accountability based on cultural values. We assume that children are not fit for all of the rights provided to citizens because of the intellectual burden required to use them. If you deny that right to vote to women who are of the age that society deems people fit for accountability, that is a form of oppression because it is a denial of rights that, by our modern standards, ought to be given to those of relatively equal capability.

>children are not fit for all of the rights provided to citizens because of the intellectual burden required to use them.

So the same as women.

Ha ha

I was not joking.

What do you mean by personalistic and impersonalistic?

I know. Unfortunately for you, considering that we live in a society with norms of expansive and inclusive rights, that opinion won't make it very far.

Well of course. He was laughing at you, not with you. As an I.

>we live in a society with expansive and inclusive rights

Yeah you do. Thankfully I don't.

Where are you from?
>Thankfully we don't don't have rights wew dodged a bullet there

He does, women don't is what he meant, i believe.

Oh yeah that's fair

Men are physically superior to women. Societies developed around that because men can tell women what to do or they face getting beaten. Physical violence is becoming a weaker means, so now theyre rallying for rights

Brunei.

Women's only value come from bearing and caring for children and you cannot disprove this. If sex didn't exist, women would have no leverage wity men.

>If sex didn't exist

If sex didn't exist there would be no women or men.

What I meant was if reprodution didn't require sex for whatever reason. bit I think you understood that and just decided to be a prick.