Why did it take so long for Feminism to take off?

Industrial revolution was the only opportunity for the bourgeois to gain mass amounts of wealth I'm assuming.
After that period wealth attributed a certain power so the bourgeois were able to exert this in politics as well.

Masses of wealth were amassed in mercantilism but did not reproduce themselves in expanded forms. In order to unlock productive capitalism, as opposed to mercantile capitalism, and unlock the full circuit of the value form, states were required which would break down the feudal privileges of the journeymen and apprentices and peasants, and simultaneously make capital free from uncompensated seizure.

A side effect of this was the rights of the individual as the possessor of capital before the law and in the state ("rule of law" "democracy").

Once you posit rich men having rights as individuals, it becomes hard to prevent rich women and poor men, possibly even black men, from considering if they too should have rights.

Because women were historically content with their traditional role in the world and understood its significance. It's only after the mass distribution of information that the male-dominated press convinced women that their role was in fact inherently lesser than that of men, which is really very sexist. But of course being so exposed to it constantly women demanded to take on men's roles as they were no longer happy with their own. Feminists need to realize that praising women who took on inherent male roles while considering women who actively contributed in their own inherent roles as oppressed is itself discrimination.

Because for time immemorial, women would die in droves in childbirth, or more precisely due to infections from all the tearing that occurred during childbirth.

It's only with the advent of post-pasteur medicine that you had significant numbers of women surviving their pregnancies, at which point you get things where they'll be worth educating and get interested in their political situations.

It's almost as if it's unnatural or something

Because there's no way a woman can be a housewife when economics demand that she make money as well.

The industrial revolution was that demand.

He posts on his magical box that lets him send signals as electricity to strangers worldwide.

Because it's a spook

What's your point? Computers took even longer to come about than feminism did.

It took a long time for humans to become complacent and apathetic enough to allow feminism to exist.

Did you know that a girl invented computer programming?

but traditionally female roles were always considered inferior.

No they weren't. One of the most revered figures in Medieval Catholic Europe was a woman, for a role which most modern feminists would avoid.

women who were preoccupied with pregnancy and cultures that fostered this state of things would compose future generations

Feminism took off years ago (right to vote, equal pay, blabla).

I'd say now it's going down (see "femens")

Women were busy as fuck before technology liberated their minds.

Most women's labour in peasant societies is communal in nature, self-controlled, and depending on the pace & intensity (cf: early Slavic serfs versus late Prussian serfs) allows for the cultivation of mind in society.

Peasants natter. Later peasants read or have access to a "reader" for the community.

>peaceful

Shit only a female would care about.

I think you're the only one who doesn't care about having a hatchet in your face, user.

>not being peaceful means everyone everywhere will get killed

"Nope."

I'd say if you're in a situation where you and other people are not trying to kill each other, you're in a state of relative peace.

>I fucking love starting extremely bloody and economically catastrophic wars in the name of nationalism/communism

Chickenhawk detected.

If women are equal to men, then why aren't they?

Checkmate feminists.

This.

This, but unironically.

Sure life is unfair but why shouldn't we work to make it more fair? Why does having women on a level playing field bother you so much? I don't know how you can possibly answer this without basically admitting you hate women/find women inherently inferior.

>work to make it more fair
>level playing field

How? If someone has to artificially make things "fair" for you to even be competitive, then you are in no sense an equal.

That said, I don't believe that thinking women are inferior (in certain aspects of society, they are superior to men in many other aspects) means you hate women. It just means you think men and women should have different roles in society. There will always be outliers that don't fit into standard gender roles, and I'm all for those people exploring their passions and doing what they want to do, but standard gender roles just work for most people.

In the west women have equal opportunities, however the feminists want equal outcome. And you can't do that by going full retard.

Let's use the military as an example:

>Women can't join the military. Why? We can be soldiers as good as men are!
Women can now join military.

>Okay, we can join the military, but the training is TOO HARD! We should do something about it!
Training standards are lowered so women can pass the tests more easily.

And now you end up with a bunch of untrained retards serving in a useless military force.

>take off?
Not really, not even a quarter of women identify as feminists and thats even with disingenuous questions, mischaracterizations and the self-delusions of women.
This
Also ironic that women leaders from medieval and early modern Europe are the only women leaders who actually were competent
Elizabeth I, Maria Theresa, Catherine the Great
Now we have Merkel

>It just means you think men and women should have different roles in society. There will always be outliers that don't fit into standard gender roles, and I'm all for those people exploring their passions and doing what they want to do, but standard gender roles just work for most people.
Why should we exclude people from certain roles because of the parts between their legs? Why should one sex be protected more than the other? Egalitarianism is the belief that people should be treated equally regardless of how they were born.

>however the feminists want equal outcome
This is strawman. It's a very broad generalization of feminism. I'm definitely not denying that there are bad apples in the feminist movement though.

If the only difference between men and women was their genitals, or even their physical abilities in general, there would be no issue. The issue lies in women's psychology; it isn't well suited for traditionally male tasks. Egalitarianism is inherently flawed because we are not all the same

Women are naturally better at caretaking than men are. It has nothing to do with what's between their legs, it's what's in their head.

It's not just a few bad apples, equality of outcome is their entire fucking dogma.

Every feminist in the west yaps about the wage gap, this is not a strawman. There's literally NOTHING preventing a female from getting a good education and a high paying job, nothing. Schools and companies actually discriminate men with all the gender quotas and similar horseshit.

But no, she'd rather decide to study women's studies because it's easy and then ends up working as a cashier and bitch about inequality because men who studied engineering are earning more.

Do you honestly think that genitals are the only biological difference between men and women? Is this bait?

>working as a cashier and bitch about inequality because men who studied engineering are earning more.
That's not what the wage gap is

There's no other wage gap.

needed industrialization first.

> The issue lies in women's psychology; it isn't well suited for traditionally male tasks.
What are "traditionally male tasks"? You mean like construction working? Why exactly should we deny women these jobs? Because women are generally weaker then men? What about the women who can pull their own weight, especially after the industrial revolution? Should they still be forced into caretaking? A lot of people believe in Egalitarianism because it just seems to be most fair.
>Every feminist in the west yaps about the wage gap, this is not a strawman
When you say "every feminist in the west yaps about the wage gap", that is indeed a strawman. When you say "equality of outcome is their entire fucking dogma", that is indeed a strawman. If I criticized Christianity with the basis that Biblical Literalism is fucking retarded, you would say it's a strawman. You're not representing the opposing side of the argument very well.
It was tongue-in-cheek.

I'll bite: what do the western feminists, want, then? They got equal opportunity and if they don't want equal outcome, what do they really want?

Woman are inferior

Liberal and libertarian societies are designed for women. Feminism started nearly straight at the the revolutions and then it took time for the old generation to die, but then the monarchs came back and overall, it took a century for the liberals to win power.
Then the two wars. since the people want to stop the war, they are now free to dwell in leisure, where the woman excels.

>I'll bite: what do the western feminists, want, then? They got equal opportunity and if they don't want equal outcome, what do they really want?
Ask a modern western feminist, not me. I can't speak for all of them. There are modern feminists who see problems both at home and in the eastern side of the world, as sexist attitudes still exist today, just not nearly as much as they did yesterday. Also, this really has nothing to do with the post I originally challenged. The post I challenged () seems to have a problem with the idea of feminism as a whole, not modern feminism.

it embraced capitalism
"feminism" today is an entirely bourgeoisie enterprise.
look at every big "gain" for feminism, its always about the material and "feminine" consumption or alternatively feminine labour.

its an utter farce

spoken like a true nu-male

there's nothing wrong with masculinity or violence

t. draft dodger

>nu-male

More like a woman.

That's cool user, at least you can admit you have that opinion unlike some people on this board.

I can tell you've played a lot of CoD because you know a lot about masculinity and violence

I think girls are icky

Because equality of result < equality of opportunity.

I did not say otherwise, and you're misrepresenting what feminism (at least in general) is about. I'm not saying all feminists are in the right. It'd be naive however to say all feminists are in the wrong.

Feminism is absolute cancer.
Just like Islam.

I'm just saying generalizations can be dangerous, user.

As less and less energy was needed to conduct usual work and labour, men had less of a need to exert their power over making their social structure as efficient as possible. Where in barren wasteland early Europe, surviving the winter was had and only the most efficient and effective social structures and peoples survived until the intergalcius period began to set in.
When new technology comes, less energy is appropriated for such old things, and more is appropriated for leasiure.
Thus is the temptation of decadence, and the corruption of Human nature.

Upon the advent of things like the washing machine, electricity, sewing machine, and so on, women began to have leasiure as well, and began to think of themselves closer to men.

And the ball rolls down the hill from there.
Very, very far down the hill.
I can continue if anyone wants to hear me ramble.

Not generalizing can be dangerous user.
I assume that a Tiger is not an animal to relax around, for food empirical measure tells me I might die.
I use generalizations when addressing vast swaths of groups, and when addressing an individual do I give them the benefit of the doubt.

American "feminists" are nothing but a bunch of of psychopathic Misandrists who have infected anything that the movement has stood for.

Equality of opportunity is the only valid position they can ever take, and they haven't.

250,000 years of "oppression".

>>Why did it take so long for Feminism to take off?

Because the work place for most of history has been a very dangerous place.

Pretty much as soon as women started suggesting they wanted more rights, they got them, compared to other civic movements there was very little friction with feminism and the government because it's in the interest of a government to look after the interests of women, you can see this as far back as rome where the women of rome would petition to the senate and usually get what they want, while civic action by groups of low class men would often be met with inaction or violence.

Feminism is nothing more than an extension of our collective desire to protect women.

Charles Babbage is not a girl.

Computer programming existed before computers.

>I assume that a Tiger is not an animal to relax around, for food empirical measure tells me I might die.
The problem is that you're equating a carnivorous animal to a human being with ideas different from yours.
>American "feminists" are nothing but a bunch of of psychopathic Misandrists who have infected anything that the movement has stood for.
Your idea of feminism is the type of feminism that /pol/ loves to shit on and exaggerate the shit out of. I understand that it's hard for you to think of feminism in a different way because your only experiences with it (or knowledge of it) comes from /pol/ making fun of tumblrites. Do you think all American blacks believe their ancestors were once Egyptian kings? Do you think all atheists are edgy fedora SJWs? Do you think society is going to hell because /pol/ told you so? Learn a different perspective on things or else your only basis is strawman. I remember talking to some guy who thought banning abortions was one example of Republicans fucking fighting for big government. He didn't realize that Republicans generally see abortion as infanticide because he only talks to liberals.

guys GUYS guys guys guys GUYS

Guys

guys.

GUYS.

guys.

Cleopatra.

guys.

Ann bonnie.

GUYS

guys guys

guys GUYS guys guys