In light of the feminist struggles of oppressed first world women I have been ruminating on the relationships between...

But back then you could beat your wife and nothing would happen to you..Today its not like that..

>in the soviet union where women were considered equals
And now you know why the USSR collapsed.

You could which doesn't mean it happened very often.

In some countries(mine included) you can't beat your kids either but is it because people only did it for fun? No. It got banned after media causing hysteria in situations where parents killed/permanently damaged their kids.
Which still happens btw. despite the ban.

And yet hardly anyone beats their kids in western countries whereas before, almost everyone did. It was acceptable and legitimate.

I find it incredibly sad how modern people always correlate traditional family with abuse, beating and violence.

This makes sense since Communism is literally based on the interests of the Community which the Traditional family fullfills

Well because in the past traditional families was all that was and in the past a husband could beat his wife and nothing would happen to him..

Even being less ideological - communist really cared about maintaining population growth, traditional families were simply good at generating it.

Right, so every woman who gets married today gets beaten and abused?

tiparituriromanesti.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/sateanul-crestin-bucuresti-1853/

Text from 19th century Wallachia(the really poor part of Europe) for peasants.
Pretty much, "don't be a dick to your wife, don't treat her like a slave, don't beat her, lest you wanna wind up like a retarded rider that wants to take his mare for a walk, and the horse keeps throwing him in the dirt, because he's a brute. Better for that rider to be kind to his steed, and so they be happy and walk proudly on the street, and the horse/wife will say: I am very happy, because my rider is brave and good to me, because he loves me "(yes, the comparison to a horse is weird to modern ears, but they are using metaphors for illiterate peasants to know only housework).
Yes, wife-beaters happened, both then and now, but they were seen as morally reprehensible.

Why are you being a retard?

Not being a retard at all.

If you're saying traditional families were violent and abusive in the past, what's stopping them from being that way now?

media and advertisment and actual laws.

>media and advertisment and actual laws

Pretty sure none of those things stop a crime from taking place.

Again, why are you being retarded?

I'm not being a retard you fucking sperg.

I'm asking you why you consider the traditional family violent and abusive, simply because they were 50-100 years ago.

That's an honest question, and saying media and advertisement, and laws is a bullshit answer.

feminism gives free contraceptives to women, while they do nothing for those for men, especially they never fought for them to be free of charge
and they never encouraged free drugs to fight against the erectile dysfucntion, as you must have a boner before even putting a condom, while they advocate sexual jouissance for every woman on earth

feminism does nothing to liberate the talk about psychological violence on men from women

feminism does nothing to liberate the talk of raped men inside a household

feminism favorizes the abortion whithout even the requirement to inform the father

feminism does nothing against coerced paternity

feminism does nothing about the inequality favouring women on the dating game

feminists actually do not promote intellectual independance as a men is considered a sexist scumbag as soon as he disagrees with them or even try to nuance their positions

do you still believe that the feminists fight for equality ?

Ancient egyptians saw men an women as equals.

Are you thick? OP was obviously making fun of it.

> Well because in the past traditional families was all that was and in the past a husband could beat his wife and nothing would happen to him..
Aside from her cousins, brothers, uncle and father coming and beating the shit out of him for being an asshole that beats their sweet little girl...

It's amazing the way leftists honestly think problems can never find solutions without the intervention of the state.

>It's amazing the way leftists honestly think problems can never find solutions without the intervention of the state.

Not him, but those solutions usually end up exactly as you said though. Like this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feud

It's equally amazing how much bullshit reactionaries can confabulate at will.

This entire thread is AIDS on a stick unless people start sourcing their claims.

Well, my dad threat to beat the shit out of my mom if she even seems to disagree with him. So yeah, I guess there is roles assigned to members of a family and they are more and more blurring.

Which is a pretty strong incentive not to gratuitously beat your wife and piss off her family. Now he not only has to worry about her family kicking his ass he has to worry about his own family knocking some sense into him to avoid kicking off a decades long blood feud.

>If you don't think the family unit is inherently oppressive you're a reactionary
Cry moar faggot.

>whinge about caricatured 'leftists'
>not a reactionary

I'm just playing the percentages m8.

see:

It's also a strong incentive to have a state that arbitrates justice by having a trial instead of people just beating and murdering each other on hearsay.

Reminder that your mother chose to marry your "abusive" dad and she could have left him at any time.

Yeah, but what is that? Is it a law? An almanac of sage advice?

Ans she "chose" to have six kids with him. Do you know how people can be commuted to their offsprings, what they can endure for them, even if it's wrong for both of them? Also, are you seems to know jackshit about psychology and the abusive/abuser dynamic.
I absolutely dont understand what you're trying to say besides maybe the vague idea that people have absolutely freedom, anyway I'll assume it's a shitty bait.

Correct but this isn't a thread debating the merits of a culture of honor vs. a culture of law, this is a thread claiming that wife beating was the norm until they made laws against it.

This is slightly related, but perhaps Veeky Forums has more info on how women actually lost agency with the Renmissance?

I learned this several years ago in an AP Euro class, but it was explained in the Middle Ages, Noble women had quite a bit of power over their lives. They could inheret land and basically in charge if the king was out to war in something. The noble mother conducted business with lords and set up marriages and so forth.
It wasn't until the Renaissance when the idea of women being to "pure", "frail" , and fit only for sewing and "ladylike" things. So while men had a huge boom in creativity and science the females were restricted heavily even in noble houses.
That was the long and short of it.

>dating game
fucking lol, is this is an issue?

So you're saying she choose to fuck the man that beat her not just once but at least SIX times?
lol

It is if you're a poorfag who resents generally being expected to pay for meals etc. The rest is largely incel rage.

This

Just because it's a caricature doesn't mean it isn't true.

I'm talking about dominance and verbal abuse.
Again. What. Is. Your. Point? Does it bother you to see that women can be submissive and obediant?

That's exactly what it means. "You think the State needs to be involved in everything" is false even if I favour State intervention more than you do.

Also Vocel disgust at stupid bitches.
>go out of my way to change locks for friend because her boyfriend was abusive and she has a restraining order against him
>she proceeds to let him in so they can fuck an hour after I finished

Bitches deserve every bad thing that happens to them.

sage advice.
If you want law around those parts:

Sounds like bullshit to me.

No it bothers me when they pretend that they don't want to get treated like animals and demand the state waste money protecting them from the choices they made.

>Vocel

kek, sourgrapescels? Yeah, giving loads of fucks about them here.

>go out of my way to change locks for friend because her boyfriend was abusive and she has a restraining order against him
>she proceeds to let him in so they can fuck an hour after I finished

What does this have to do with anything?

We agree then. Hypocrisy is showing more and more in feminism movements, that will be their doom

Not pictured: sourced claims.

Also, if it's sage advice that tends to undermine your position, not support it. People don't spend a lot of time advising people to do things everyone does. So the existence of advice or 'best practice' guidelines a la "Please don't beat your wife" suggests that wife-beating was a problem.

>No it bothers me when they pretend that they don't want to get treated like animals

lol

go jerk off in your sister's panties some more, loser

It's true though. Women like being treated like shit, as long as the guy doing it is someone who makes their panties wet.

I know it's an uncomfortable truth, but it's true.

It's also true that words like "creep" or "desperate" were invented by women for men they don't like, not men who have done anything wrong.

hahaha

what a fucking loser

>He thinks I care

But didnt they know how women were treated in the medieval ages?Did they not study history?

>It's also true that words like "creep" or "desperate" were invented by women for men they don't like, not men who have done anything wrong.

If you really believe this I hope you get the help you need.

>effortposting on an imageboard about something you don't care about

I don't remember the specifics. This could have been a regional thing. And generally poor women got treated like dirt no matter what. Only the richer women ever had any real freedoms

>effortposting

What is this? Some normie jargon?

>highschool nonesense..
Grow up.

It's something women made up to describe how much of a loser you are.

Cunts honestly don't understand yet that they have made themselves so odious that not even the reproductive instinct can over come our revulsion.

There is not a single thing the modern woman offers me that I cannot provide for myself. The best part though is when they assume that my avoidance of them is a boycott to get them to change. Bitch I don't care that you don't care that I don't care. This isnt for your benefit, you honestly disgust me and I could not care less if you want me or not because I will never want you.
I need you like a fish needs a bicycle.
:^)

>I don't care
>proceeds to post about how much he doesn't care
lmao

Well I wouldn't want you to be confused and think that I care a little bit.
:3

Could the acceptance of homosexuality in ancient cultures have led to the view of women as good for nothing but breeding, with actual fraternal and amorous feelings reserved for other men?

That's certainly the way it was in ancient Greece.

>There is not a single thing the modern woman offers me that I cannot provide for myself.

You have a vagina? Bro that's awesome, you've got it made.

>he honestly thinks you need a vagina to get off!

I like that the first thing that springs to your mind to justify the existence of women is their cunts and not their ability to bear children, because subconsciously even feminists realize that feminists don't have kids.

Bitches your cunt is a skinner box and I don't need your cocaine drip.

>He doesn't know prostitutes exist

If I want sex, sex is available literally everywhere.

So you do need women, after all. Good chat.

I like that you don't understand simple English sentences, thickie. No wonder you can't get laid.

>So you do need women, after all. Good chat.

No, they're not "needed" anymore than a beer is, but a cool beer is nice every once in a while, and it's cheap as well.

y u mad though roastie?

For sex, I mean. You said there was nothing women could offer you that you couldn't provide yourself, and now you've admitted that's not true. Try to keep up, it's not like this is even especially complex.

Ah, so I'm dealing with daddy issues. Great.

>You said there was nothing women could offer you that you couldn't provide yourself, and now you've admitted that's not true.

Well I'm not the guy who said that, I just jumped in, but it is true, because women are not needed for sexual release in any way.

In my opinion there's no point for men to associate with women at all, considering the fact that sex is so easy to acquire, either by just going out and finding a one-night stand, or buying a prostitute.

other than sex I mean to say*

Every morning the wife was raped awake by her husband and all the male children of the family (the girls were either sold off as soon as they were born or thrown off a cliff)

Next she would have to make them all good an wade on them like a slave all day until it was time for the husband to go to bed when he would rape her again then beat her until she passed out

This would happen every day except Christmas and Easter where the priest would beat her instead

>there's no point for men to associate with women, considering how associating with women leads to easy sex

I dunno, I just dunno. I never know how to deal with people who are literally retarded. Like, if we were talking IRL I think this is the point where I'd ask you where your parents are and maybe buy you an ice-cream while we find a policeman.

I corrected myself hereThere's no reason to associate with women beyond getting easy sex for a modern male.

What's the point of having a monogamous relationship with a woman, if you don't want kids, and you get less sex than when you're single?

>nothing would happen
Besides her brothers and friends and dad coming to beat you up or murder you.

Beating your wife was a big taboo and not anymore common than it is now because only weirdos do that

Also women had a lot more power in the household of their own

>What's the point of having a monogamous relationship with a woman

People like having relationships.

>Beating your wife was a big taboo and not anymore common than it is now

Source? I'm not taking a position either way, I just can't fucking believe how blase people are being about swinging these unsourced claims around.

>People like having relationships.

Sure, they do. But they also like having a lot of sex, and being single in the 21st century allows you more sex than when you are in a relationship.

All that only applies if she reports it, which often she won't

In the past her family would come to your house if they saw we bruised up and murder you

The "law" was exactly the same, just informal and local.

>But they also like having a lot of sex, and being single in the 21st century allows you more sex than when you are in a relationship.

And?

>it's a historical fiction thread

>And?

Which is why I think a modern male doesn't have to associate with women beyond having sex with them.

Hence why I compared women to a beer here

Women were treated well in the Middle Ages

Women always have it the worst when society is at its strongest, in the Middle Ages there was very little control and rural life is always largely egalitarian
Not to mention the dynamics of court life favored women

We can see this even more by the clothes they wore, flowing silky dresses with lots of cleavage
Vs the tight thick garments of latter which hid everything

>Which is why I think a modern male doesn't have to associate with women beyond having sex with them.

And working with them, and encountering them in daily life etc. But tell me more of your repressed homosexual fantasies, they're rather fetching.

>And working with them, and encountering them in daily life etc.

Sure but that's not really what I mean when I'm talking about "associating" with them.

I mean, I talk to women all the time professionally, but I don't go on dates, or hang out with them, because that's not what I want. I want to fuck them.

Hence, I buy prostitutes, or try to find some willing girl when I'm out drinking.

Men don't need relationships with women, and the sexual revolution made it possible for men to live lives where they get plenty of sex without the cultural and social enforcement marriage or monogamy.

women do not take risks, nor make effort, nor seek merit, since they get men to take risks for and make effort and cling to the fantasy of merit for them.
and men are happy to take risks, to make effort and have duties, responsibilities, seek merit, for women (men think that they are valuable, if they manage to win something, once they are in a situation that they believe is risky or requires effort or duties).
in fact, men even feel sad and depressed when they do not get noticed by women.

>Which is why I think a modern male doesn't have to associate with women beyond having sex with them.
sex is for:
-women
-men who love to try to entertain women and make women moan
-homosexuals

sex is just for plebs