Why did all pre-20th century intellectuals blast women? Was it all just stereotyping?

No quite the opposite actually.

Because they looked at them thoughtfully and spoke about them freely.

>Somewhere, sometime long ago lost in the annals of time people decided
>people decided
>decided
Like in a whim or something.

It was "decided" by... err... every human group on the planet.

I tried to write a nice coherent story that a preschool kid could figure out.

>damage control

There is no excuse for writing something that retarded.

Women are generally terrible, from my experience.
No, I'm not bitter. I've slept with many women. I've had girlfriends. I have many female friends. I just think women tend to be fucking awful. I can't tell you how many times an insensitive cunt has accused me of being incapable of feeling emotions because I told her to think about something or that she was overreacting. Men do the same, but women do it more often. Their knee-jerk reaction to most situations, nowadays, is to say that anyone who disagrees with them is a sexist. The ones who don't buy into feminism tend to either be edgier than feminists, or just want to submit to masculinity. There's no reason to think that women aren't shit.

Because "high class" women whom they interacted with were considered lazy, vapid whores who just had to sit around and look pretty.

One reason why gender equality is a central tenant of communism is because lower class women were generally considered to be fairly equal in importance compared to the men, while the bourgeois women of yester-year lived a life of reletive comfort and safety compared to the men.

somebody mad

Are you legitimately trying to poke holes in a narrative like for the sake of debate?

You must be a fun guy at parties I take it.

It was not coherent.

...

That doesn't look like an argument.

treating women like special snowflakes is actually an oddity in history, only western white liberals do it

Already done. Nice attack on his persona BTW. Stay classy.

Are you implying that nobody decided to do anything when the division of labor was first being distributed in the earliest societies? That nobody at all had agency? You haven't made an argument, you've pointed out the use of a word that you don't like, you haven't even given us reasons to think that the women involved didn't have any say in the process.

Maybe every group of humans on earth realized that biological difference made one choice the better one. How is that deciding on a whim?

>it's a misogyny thread

It happened in a de facto way. Do you fucking think that they talked it out instead of doing the only think that didn't imply to die of hunger in the winter?
And BTW, if it was some kind of an argument, why did men won it everywhere in the world independently of the circumstances?

>Do you fucking think that they talked it out instead of doing the only think that didn't imply to die of hunger in the winter?
Do you think they didn't use language?
>argument
A decision is not an argument. You misunderstand the claim being made; nobody is saying women and men voted on it, they're saying that some people decided to do certain things and exert force on others for the sake of, you know, surviving as hunter-gatherer bands.
It's not that hard to understand what's being said.

It's because no woman would date them. I think that kind of rejection twists a man's brain. It's pretty sad.

>Their knee-jerk reaction to most situations, nowadays, is to say that anyone who disagrees with them is a sexist.

>>it's a misogyny thread

Why do you thing no women would date the most smart and insightful people in History.

>Implying that they were wrong
Basically they predicted the downfall of our civilization. Low birthrates, the inmigration of third worlders into European countries and the rise of socialism is linked with woman gaining voting rights

>they're saying that some people decided
>some
>decided
Fucking again.

>why do you think women wouldnt date the most smart and insightful Men in history

But also because they either weren't interested in women, or were too beta to know how to court one. Women aren't going to pursue you, they expect you to come to them. It's been like that since the beginning of time.

Also some did, Socrates had 5 kids.

Because they were insufferably dull and repelled everyone in their life, male or female

I don't even know what your argument is. What is your position? What do you mean by "de facto?"

Socrates was a Chad though, dude fought in a bunch of battles as a Hoplite for Athens.

Why do you thing they were not interested in women.
Socrates was forced to marry.

>tfw philosophers have been revered by men since always everywhere, and the powerful ones competed for their attention.
>tfw half of them had literally bands of followers.

Women were second class citizens.
Women (second class citizens) use passive-aggressive tactics to achieve their goals.

It gets on a guy's nerves sometimes.

>Why do you thing they were not interested in women.

Some weren't, Schopenhour for example was disgusted by them. But some also were, just they failed in their advances because they didn't understand what women wanted, or were unwilling to give it to them.

This is bait.

literally, from the fact
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/de facto

something that exists in fact but not necessarily by right or agreement
thefreedictionary.com/de facto

This seems to be the most likely answer I think

So are you telling me that women are de facto inferior to men and have always been? I don't understand what your argument is, as I've repeatedly said.

Schopenhaur was disgusted with the idea of marriage, not women by themselves. He had several affairs with women younger than him.

Do you have a single source to back up your claims?

They didn't ALL do it, ironically making you guilty of stereotyping.

I'm saying that the reason why men and women ended in the same roles everywhere in the world was because those were the roles they were fitted for, and that it happened as a natural, factual, development, not because SOME people DECIDED it should be like that.

And I have ended here. You can say whatever you want for I'm closing the thread for not to experience this painful ride anymore.

>Because "high class" women whom they interacted with were considered lazy, vapid whores who just had to sit around and look pretty.

Not exactly true . Lots of high class women at the time studied philosophy and pursued an intellectual life. They were even criticised by some authors for being as such (see Molière's works). Of course, a minority, but still present.

>not because SOME people DECIDED it should be like that.
Do you not know anything about how social organization works? I honestly don't see any reason to just take your assertions at face value. It seems like you just want to deny people agency in the formation of social structures.

It's not hard to study philosophy and pursue an intellectual life, especially if you're vapid. You can say their critics were sexist, but I doubt you're engaging with those critics' actual criticism of these upper-class women's philosophies.

More than few actually spoke very highly of women. Thomas Hobbes actually taught Margaret Cavendish enough about politics and Philosophy for her to be a respected intellectual voice on the topics.

However, the truth is, women are just not on the whole as smart and naturally inclined to intellectual work as men. In order to excel this area, it requires a certain level of unorthodoxy that women are naturally predisposed against,

lol at thinking intellectuals hung around high class women, and were unpopular with the ladies. You should read up on the French intellectual scene.

They spent a ton of time with prostitutes, and guys like David Hume, chubby and goofy as he was, was a renowned ladies man. It got to the point where he communicated with people through his paramours and prostitutes.

So did pretty much everyone else in athens. It was part of their democratic duty, they constantly fought for food and land.

>a woman is a human being who dresses, chats shit, and gets banged
What did he mean by this?

PC culture didn't exist yet so they could openly dissect what everyone already knew, and their minds weren't clouded by sex goggles

Subjectivity mi amigo.

Every generation has a paradigm

men can't give birth to and breast feed babies. women are weaker than men. innate differences do have to do with this. if we didn't live in the first world it would be impossible for most women to not follow their traditional gender role

>who is John Stuart Mill