Men Contribution vs Women Contribution in History

Or the small pox

Um no

History is sexist you misogynistic rapist

These threads are retarded. Women have contributed to pretty much any field you can think of, and seeing as society very obviously stopped them from being able to go into most fields in the west at least, it's dumb to treat the fact that there's less of them doing it as some proof of what's literally "Boys rule, Girls drool".

The modern world is different, but once again, it's kind of hard to argue of what in particular is more valuable. Is being a doctor more valuable than a nurse? Both contribute to caring for those that need it, just in different ways. Pay or prestige doesn't equal usefulness.

Hey, look! A reasonable post on Veeky Forums!

>Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne
what

desu this is pretty much denialism/goalpost movement. it's obvious that you can construct a system of values whereby womens achievements and worth are comparable to those of men, the question is not "can you do that" but why you need to do it in the first place, why it isn't a priori obvious that women are as good as men.

Sharon Osbourne had a huge impact on Ozzy's career. Maybe not early Sabbath, but he's definitely a musician that would have burned out really young if it wasn't for her.

Tony Iommi's what kept Sabbath going, but she's what kept him going. Plus, she's been manager for Sabbath for ages, so you could argue she's more important in keeping it moving than even Tony at this point.

>Ozzy leaves black sabbath
>Things aren't going so well
>New band is going pretty well
>They all die drunk while taking a plane for a joy ride
>Ozzy's life really fucking sucks now
>His second wife Sharon becomes manager for his band and makes him a success again

At least I think that's how it happened. I might be wrong on some if the things.

>desu this is pretty much denialism/goalpost movement.

No it's not? Please explain how it's those things, don't just name fallacies and expect it to make sense.

Pointing out that societal influences in the past make any comparison of who achieved what kind of pointless, and that in most fields you can't just go "This one's better because I say so" isn't goalpost movement at all.

What does this have to do with history and humanities?

Men programmed before the compiler with assembly languages and machine code, but yes, the compiler was invented by a woman.

First off, nice digits.

And secondly, who said this was exclusively restricted to history or the humanities? The guy just gave an example of a couple where even though the woman wasn't out in the front, she was still just as important to him not being a dead drug addict and instead being a hugely successful musician who still creates great music and tours (well, toured, they're apparently done now, but this is like the 4th final tour they've done).

The OP states albeit crudely that men have actively dominated human history in a way that women simply have not, and he is correct. For most of human history, all significant forms of political, religious, economic, and military power were wielded almost, but not entirely, exclusively by men. The claim that women have contributed to society is not relevant because nobody is saying they didn't, apart from the OP who's a retard. It's obvious that women contributed something even if most of the time, it was their uteruses. The question is why we can only say that women contributed, and not that they dominated history. Saying that "society stopped them" is moving the goalposts, because it doesn't answer the fundamental question of WHY AND HOW SOCIETY STOPPED THEM YOU FUCKING DUNDERHEAD. Like do you think that society is some kind of magical abstract force that prevents women from doing anything of note? No, it is made up of men and women; why then does it lead to outcomes where men dominate and women, at best, contribute?

denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

Here's some actual board relevant content about this, maybe you should read it dipshit. tl;dr societies that encourage women to take the same kinds of risks that make some men into Alexander, Caesar, or Napoleon (and a whole lot more men into their front line cannon fodder), are eventually going to be outbred by those societies which encourage women to shut the fuck up and breed. is this moral and good? no, it's simple case of evolutionary pressure, gaylord.

Why is the alt right so awful at fucking sourcing their modernistic forward flow of history nonsense.

This. Butthurt permavirgins BTFO

>abloobloobloo poster must belong to evil cabal of bad politics mans

Put up or shut up, faggot. I posted an actual article in the actual humanities written by an actual academic and made an actual argument about it. What the fuck are you gonna do about it? Apart from cry harder.

>I posted an actual article in the actual humanities

an actual article in the actual humanities

> Saying that "society stopped them" is moving the goalposts, because it doesn't answer the fundamental question of WHY AND HOW SOCIETY STOPPED THEM YOU FUCKING DUNDERHEAD

Kek, it's very ironic you went off at me for moving the goalposts while you just fucking knocked yours over and went "Haha, fuck you, you can't win now".

The obvious answer to that is that physically, men are much more capable, and as such were able to simply force women to be subjugated. Once one generation does that and the rest see it as the norm, it takes a long time to change it, which we've seen been happening for centuries now.

>denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

I read the first few points in this, and then stopped. I'm not interested in reading "It's because of feminism!" over and over again.

>s this moral and good? no, it's simple case of evolutionary pressure, gaylord.

It's also completely fucking irrelevant to the topic at hand.

My point was that you cannot compare past comparisons because of, regardless of what the reason are, women were almost completely incapable of going into those fields. It flat out was not an option for them.

And that when you compare tasks done in the modern world, you hit the question of "Why is X more valuable than Y, despite them both being vital for Z to be accomplished?", which I demonstrated with my example of doctors and nurses, which are both necessary for creating an effective medical system.

You then proceeded to go on about feminism and just ignore all of my points while just changing the topic to something completely different.

I'm going to eat a cookie for every time I see the alt right use a buzz word like bogeyman when someone insults them. It's like they're incapable of letting themselves be insulted. It's like stormfront has a guidebook on how to confront certain situations like they're working a suicide hotline booth.

>My point was that you cannot compare past comparisons because of

Cannot compare past achievements, sorry.

I literally did not mention feminism once. You mention it twice in just this post, but the article isn't about feminism at all, as you would know if you had read it past the point where you presupposed it to have nothing useful to teach your dumb ass.

If you want to come to the conclusion that man's historical dominance over society is caused by his general physical superiority to woman, you are free to do so, but I think Baumeister raises some other very interesting reasons why this dominance exists. Maybe you should do a little reading and find out what they are. While you're at it maybe you should take a moment to think about the fact that you're basically agreeing with the OP, just complaining about the fact that he's right.

This is what I mean by denialism and goalpost movement. Instead of showing how women have actually been just as important as men, you take it for granted that they SHOULD be and begin to advance claims that clearly society is holding women back from their true potential. But again you don't show the slightest desire to examine why this is so. Why was it not an option for women to go into this that and the other field? And if it was because men would beat them up if they tried (it wasn't only because of this but, just for the sake of argument lets say it was), then what are the factors that explain that, and why that behavior would persist?

They're showing that just because the Man is the poster-child for success, doesn't mean they did it all themselves. Ozzy's talent got him in the spotlight, but Sharon is the reason he's alive and richer than ever, and also the producer of many things, such as Ozzfest.
(they're recently divorced, so he's probably got >5 years left)

The problem is you're interpreting history as a series of progressions made by men. This isn't the case, it's culture that largely moves people. Men are easy as figureheads at a time, but currently they are not.

You're a fucking retard and here's why. You want to know the number 1 fundamental difference between men and women? Women get pregnant and have babies. Shocking right? Well we live in an age where hormonal birth control is a thing that exists, but before 1950 that shit was not available. That means that for the entire duration of human history women could get fucked by a man and become pregnant. Now, the olden days were rough and tumble and not an easy place for a pregnant lady to survive on her own. So what happened in most cases was the guy who fucked the gal ended up marrying her, which is an old timey way of saying that he owns her and everything she has and she can never divorce him and he can beat her if he wants to and that's totally okay with the governmental and religious authority at the time. This situation was worldwide and lasted for millennia. So keep that in mind when you criticize a gender that has only really had true biological freedom since around the time the Beatles got together.

Also the first computer was invented by a woman.

>I literally did not mention feminism once. You mention it twice in just this post, but the article isn't about feminism at all, as you would know if you had read it past the point where you presupposed it to have nothing useful to teach your dumb ass.

As I said, I read the first few major points, and it was literally all "opinions changed because of feminism", so I stopped. If I wanted to read that, I could look on /pol/.

>If you want to come to the conclusion that man's historical dominance over society is caused by his general physical superiority to woman, you are free to do so, but I think Baumeister raises some other very interesting reasons why this dominance exists

The only example you raised was one where if women are in charge, men come and subjugate them physically. Which supports what I said. You said this here
>tl;dr societies that encourage women to take the same kinds of risks that make some men into Alexander, Caesar, or Napoleon (and a whole lot more men into their front line cannon fodder), are eventually going to be outbred by those societies which encourage women to shut the fuck up and breed

>While you're at it maybe you should take a moment to think about the fact that you're basically agreeing with the OP, just complaining about the fact that he's right.

Obviously I can agree, because it's objectively true that women didn't contribute as much to those fields in the past. I'm not just going to deny that that's the case. But the reasons why that's the case are more important than that it is, which is my entire point. See here and actually try reading it instead of just getting angry.

>Instead of showing how women have actually been just as important as men, you take it for granted that they SHOULD be and begin to advance claims that clearly society is holding women back from their true potential.

Are you denying that society oppressed women in the past?

Not him but western society at least has never really been oppressive to women.

To add onto this, I really want to point out that you're just moving away from what I said completely, and putting words in my mouth now. If you're just going to keep doing that to prove some retarded theory that women are outright worse than men, I'm not interested in discussing this with you.

Be honest if you're going to have a conversation, otherwise why bother?

Yeah, okay, sure.

Is this the Grace Hopper maymay? Because that's incorrect.

But user without women there would be no men

...

WE

He os right though.
If you counts not having the rights we have today then the vast majority of men were opressed as well.

...

It is a fact that women have a brain the size of a squirell's. Therefore thet never contributed anything of worth.

says the worm who want to be noticed by women

Not that women were given much choice in the matter.

Well weing weaklings does preclude one from certai. Activities.

Well correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't women in the 18th century treated more or less as slightly taller children, and had generally archaic standards placed upon them, such as the reading of novels being a mental illness, as were most slightly unpleasant moods?
I'm talking about Victorian England, mind.

Well yeah, most people apart from wealthy landowners were some what oppressed, but the men could still choose to do almost anything, there wasn't the same sort of oppression on a poor man as there was a poor woman, and it's easy to argue that a rich woman was in fact more oppressed than a poor man, as luxuries don't equal freedom.

Women were heavily restricted in what they could do in life, even if they had the resources, there was shit they just couldn't do. The men could do anything, it was just a matter of if they had the resources.

You stand corrected. You are wrong.
They were wards of their husba ds at worst.
In most states what ever right your husband had you had them as well.

Can you provide a source for this please?

But i. Exchange for that they could expect protection from failure which men did not have.

Hell back them hisbands could go to jail for TORT crimes tgeir wives committed

They had far more protections then is generally known.

You're deliberately ignoring the negative aspects of the past.

Actually it was in one of my old history textbooks.
Some jew broad outlined why women wanted rights as the time.
I wish i could remember which one it was.

No i am not.
There was a balance. Sure they did not have all the same right as some men.
But unlike men they had protections and consideration that the men in her life were bound to uphold.
The problem is that with modern women is that they want the protections and the rights which throws the balance out of whack

>There was a balance

No there was not. This is deliberately ignoring history.

>Pay or prestige doesn't equal usefulness.

This.

The contribution of mothers/nurses/generally female dominated roles in society were just as important to an actual functional society even if many of them aren't very glorious.

Obviously, though, the OP is baiting for stuff like inventions / very impressive achievements, and yes, historically it's been a man's world in that regard. Everyone except the most delusional radical feminist acknowledges that, but everyone but the most delusional /pol/itician also acknowledges that women in a majority of historical societies were limited in their opportunities to do high-profile tasks.

>They had far more protections then is generally known.

You're ignoring major parts of history to go "Yeah but it wasn't that bad, so oppression doesn't count".

We're talking about oppression in the form of what they were and weren't allowed to do in society, and how this impacted their contribution.

The law being unfair towards everyone bar wealthy landownvers at the time doesn't mean that men were somehow oppressed to the same level. A rich woman had less rights than a poor man in almost any society I can think of, because she simply had no ability to change her situation or choose where her life went, and many "Immoral" behaviours were seen as illegal and heavily prosecuted, while ignored in male counterparts.

Well I mean, I'm not accusing you of lying, but that's not much of a source.

>The problem is that with modern women is that they want the protections and the rights which throws the balance out of whack

This isn't about feminism in the modern world and whether it's good or bad, fuck off with that shit.

So defensive

Calling "glass houses" on smug assholes sounds pretty reasonable to me.

I really do get sick and tired of useless people claiming credit for something their group did, be it gender or nationality or even their own ancestors. None of it was their doing, yet it seems the habit of abject failures, when they fail to think of their own contributions, to latch onto the contributions of others to get their sense of superiority.

If you're useless / live a modest life and don't shit on others that's great, but if you're going to shit on people for not doing enough you should have something YOU did to back it up.

I doubt there were a lot of women in Suleiman's army user.

I am not ignoring anything.
Opression simply is not the right word. Slaves were opressed.
Immoral behaviors were not ignored in men. We were not allowed to masturbate that why circumcision renewed. Have you seen the anti masturbation cages they sometimes would wear?

Yes this is about feminism in part because thats the endgame.

>Opression simply is not the right word. Slaves were opressed.
Oppression is objectively the right word. Slaves being more oppressed doesn't mean that women weren't, that's like saying that because biting someones throat out is violent, that punching someone isn't violent.

>Immoral behaviors were not ignored in men.

Wow yeah you're right so many men got executed for having mistresses, and it was totally not a common thing for men to have almost complete control over the household to the point that illegal actions such as assault were ignored assuming it was against your spouse.

>We were not allowed to masturbate that why circumcision renewed.

What? Circumcision has nothing to do with masturbation, and I'd challenge you to find me any evidence that there was long term prosecution of guys jerking it.

>Have you seen the anti masturbation cages they sometimes would wear?

No, because this was never a thing beyond chastity belts, which are hardly common or widespread.

>Yes this is about feminism in part because thats the endgame.

By that logic, any thread about medieval technology should also be a thread about videogames, because that's the end game of it, right? It's not on topic, and it's just going to result in you sperging out about how terrible the modern woman is because of it, which I'm not interested in hearing. Go to /r9k/ or /pol/ if you want to debate that.

I dont like his tone either but I think he does raise a point. It seems like most history IS centered around men. It doesnt matter what OP personally did.

Before you accuse me of being hyperbolic too, I'd like to change the term executed to one of being socially shunned and actively punished, as though executions did happen in cases where the wife was cheating, I don't have evidence that it was widespread, and can't be fucked looking to find any.

No opression is not the right word. They had right and the men in their lives had restrictions and responsibilities places upon them.
Their husband could not sell their house without her permission because she was entitled to have him provide a place to live.

No beating hs never been legal atleast not in the ubited states
>The Massachusetts Body of Liberties adopted in 1641 by the Massachusetts Bay colonists states, “Every married woman shall be free from bodily correction or stripes by her husband, unless it be in his own defense from her assault.”
It simply is not a thing. You speculate because you acceot propaganda.

If you think circumcision has nothing to do with masturbation then look up charles kellogg.

Humanity could survive without flying to the moon, but it can't survive without birth, retard.

You know what thats fine because she violated ger part of the marrage contract.
Men and wime play diffrent games here.
No man wants to raise a child that is not his own.
Marrage contracts are the purchaseing of a womans exclusive reproductive rights in exchange for provision. She broke her part of the bargain.

>No opression is not the right word

Well, despite what you think, words have objective definitions, and this one fits.

>No beating hs never been legal atleast not in the ubited states

You ignored I didn't say it was legal, just that it was ignored. Nice one.

>If you think circumcision has nothing to do with masturbation then look up charles kellogg.

I don't see how a man who can imitate birdsong perfectly is really relevant here.

And it doesn't, you can jerk it with or without a foreskin.

>Marrage contracts are the purchaseing of a womans exclusive reproductive rights in exchange for provision. She broke her part of the bargain.

Cool, so you agree with me that in the past, women were far more oppressed than men in this aspect, yeah? Going "Oh well it doesn't count because she's a woman" doesn't actually work here.

Women cant give birth on their own retard.
Reproductive roles need not enter into this discussion sine they cant be done independently of one another

It did exist though. Do you honestly think its propaganda?

Chill Davis Aurini

>making twenty bait threads a day about women that amount to the same shit

I know it's the same person making them too

Of course domestic violence has always existed.
And as every viable study ever. Has shown it is equal abuse.
Women abuse men as much as men abuse women.

> they cant be done independently of one another
Well... Hunting, weaponry, clothing, architecture, mathematics, science, literature and art couldn't be done independently from a half of the society, either.

>And as every viable study ever. Has shown it is equal abuse.

That is quite literally wrong. Historically wrong particularly.

>Of course domestic violence has always existed.

No-one's pointing at domestic abuse as the issue, of course it always existed, they're pointing out that it was incredibly rare for it to be prosecuted when it was male on female in that time period.

A law going "But it's illegal" isn't proof of this being wrong.

You're also referring exclusively to studies done in the modern western world and using it as proof of how it must have always been everywhere. Which is fucking retarded.

If it was ignored it would never had legal repercussions.
My bad its john harvey kellogg.
Yes you can jerk it without a foreskin but the point was to kill your sensitivity. You are just being obstinate now.

No the contract was not to the advantage of either. Taking care of some ones every need can be quite daunting yiu just have no symoathy for the mens side of things.
It doesnt count because she is a woman we have different biological roles.

Nope its not just google
Every reoutable study says the same.

You know the abusive wife with a frying pan trope? Its played for laughs but its an old victoruan era trope.
Marrage does not change that much.
Evem the 1641 law has provisions to allow for self defense.

Except it doesn't.

Show me a reputable study that does not and i will show you how its not actually reputable.
Oh and you cant go by police reports you musr use surveys since men do not report abuse.
There is a study on that too,its quite interesting

>If it was ignored it would never had legal repercussions.

That doesn't logically follow. There's plenty of laws that are rarely if ever actually used.

>My bad its john harvey kellogg.

I don't see how one guys personal beliefs is indicative of society as a whole.

>Yes you can jerk it without a foreskin but the point was to kill your sensitivity. You are just being obstinate now.

No. You pointed to circumcision as a thing that was done because it stopped masturbation, and ignored the religion and societal reasons for it, and that it doesn't stop masturbation.

>Taking care of some ones every need can be quite daunting yiu just have no symoathy for the mens side of things.

And once again you're going off topic. If you honestly believe being expected to look after the household you chose to start is the same as being able to be beaten and treated like absolute shit simply because you did something your husband didn't like, I don't know what to tell you, you're being ridiculous.

>You know the abusive wife with a frying pan trope? Its played for laughs but its an old victoruan era trope.
>tropes are now evidence

>Marrage does not change that much.

What?

>Evem the 1641 law has provisions to allow for self defense.

And the law WAS NOT USED. Jesus Christ user, we've been saying this again and again, and you just go "Yeah but the law exists" as proof.

Good job ignoring the point about yyou using modern studies in a single part of the world as proof of everywhere being retarded though.

Show me a reputable study that does

All of them google the mose recent cdc survey. Stop being lazy.

>men don't report it

While possibly true, that's hardly compelling, and you can just just "Women don't report it most of the time" in response.

That's the same retarded argument SJW's use for why there's apparently so much more rape in the world than what police reports say.

Cite it.

WUZ

Yes there are laws that sre rarely used but that does not mean they are being violated willy nilly either.

Kellogg and people like hom is whynit started up again. Ouit being a faggot you knew exactly what i was getting at with the circumcision thing. Just because it did not work does not mean thst was not its intent.

I am not off topic the merrage contract is the topic.
You make these stupid assumptuons that that how marrage typically when based on nothing.
Soeculation i am the only one that has privided any evidence.

You do not know whether the law was used you are a fool speculating to aupport your nerrative
Prove what you say.

I am done with your sorry ass.

Women do report it, often. They over report.
Its definitely true that men dont report abuse just google the subject.

>Yes there are laws that sre rarely used but that does not mean they are being violated willy nilly either.

So when there's laws that aren't being used to protect people, and husbands can abuse their wives with no repercussions, that supports my point.

>Kellogg and people like hom is whynit started up again.

No, it's not, circumcision has been a common practice since long before him.

>I am not off topic the merrage contract is the topic.

Pretty sure it's not actually.

>Soeculation i am the only one that has privided any evidence.

Evidence of what, laws existing? No-one denied that, fuck off.

>Prove what you say.
>joss.pages.tcnj.edu/files/2012/04/2008-Dodenhoff.pdf
And I know it's wikipedia, but this section too
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Victorian_era#Domestic_violence_and_abuse

>Women do report it, often. They over report.

No, they under-report because it fits my narrative, and that's all the evidence I need to provide.

Do you see how fucking retarded that is? You're literally using SJW arguments to support your point now.

Yes circumcision was an old practice just nit amonsgst orotestant christians.
I have said over and over that oeople have caused a surge in the practice and this was their reasoning.
I am talking about the evidence of the laws not being used ans you claim withiut evidence.

The under report over report was in response to modern women. Which is true.
As you jave noticed
I also tend to stick to american laws since i know next to nothing about victorian abuse law.
Though as most you do make the assumption that men are the orimary abuser at all times.
What are the mans recourse for an abusive spouse? This is not something that can be done one sided

>Yes circumcision was an old practice just nit amonsgst orotestant christians.

It's been a common practice in the west for ages, hence social, not just religious.

>I am talking about the evidence of the laws not being used ans you claim withiut evidence.

I literally provided evidence in my post you moron.

>The under report over report was in response to modern women. Which is true.

Which you've not actually even cited or provided a single piece of logic for how you can prove this.

>I also tend to stick to american laws since i know next to nothing about victorian abuse law.

America isn't the whole world user, and it was generally considered less progressive than the UK.

>Though as most you do make the assumption that men are the orimary abuser at all times.

Where did I say this?

>What are the mans recourse for an abusive spouse?

The fact that the men could divorce her and take all of her property, children and any inheritance she was left?
Citation here
>123helpme.com/domestic-violence-in-victorian-england-view.asp?id=154384

Men had complete legal authority and power over women, as supported by many, many primary sources. You're pointing to one law and going "it existed so it was used commonly and effectively", while ignoring all of the other laws that make it fucking pointless. The woman, even if the law was used effectively would divorce her husband (if it was even considered a valid reason for divorce at the time), and lose all of her property and access to children, as well as being shunned socially.

But it must have been terrible to be a man back then because you were expected to provide food, right?

Nurses are way underrated. A civil war nurse went on to found the red cross which saves lives.

America may not be the whole world but its the part that know and can argue about.

I say you dont think about the other half of the equation because none of the sources you site do
Well the men took the childrem because they were his not hers since he was completly fincncial responsible for them. No he could not take her property he had control over the property while they were married. It went bact to her in the even of a divorce. Not to mention the bower amd the dowery. Did you read you own aritcle. Its oretty damn biased though very leading language.

But as i said i will be sticking to the american kaws which are seeming to be a lot more progressive than the british ones.

>America may not be the whole world but its the part that know and can argue about.

Then don't make commentary about the general state of women off what's a relatively new state that doesn't even support what you said.

>I say you dont think about the other half of the equation because none of the sources you site do

They literally all do when they talk about the huge legal imbalances that were there. I explained how this happens already.

>Well the men took the childrem because they were his not hers since he was completly fincncial responsible for them
>literally going yeah there's an imbalance but it's actually fair because I say so

She contributed just as much to the raising of the children, financial contribution isn't everything.

>No he could not take her property he had control over the property while they were married. It went bact to her in the even of a divorce

I've literally provided proof to you that this is wrong, fuck off.

>Its oretty damn biased though very leading language.
How can an article reliant on primary sources, as well as several others I've provided the rely on legislation at the time be biased? Sure, they're making a point, but if it's based off evidence, it's not biased.

>But as i said i will be sticking to the american kaws which are seeming to be a lot more progressive than the british ones.

You're arbitrarily ruling out 99% of the history of humanity to go "Yeah i'm just going to base this off America because I could find a law that supports what I said, despite America being essentially culturally identical to Britain through most of it's early years".

You're just being dumb and playing a game of "lalala I can't hear you" at this point user. Read my sources, realise that they contain primary evidence that outright proves your ridiculous narrative of society actually never oppressing women wrong. At least stop replying with just "No you're wrong because I said so", and provide sources for it.

I will make a general commentsry of women.
Present time is makes no diffrence.
But most conversations like this are american centric because thisbisban american website expect it and deal with it.

They only explain the legal imbalances from her persoective how many wome were abusive to their husbands? How many were abused in Retaliation? What are the recourses of men aho are abused? Where is the silly frying pan tripe come from?
That is how you have a balance.

Thats how the marrage contract worked men litterly purchased childrem from Women. Why would i pay all that money and your lifestyle and get nothing for it?

You privided no oroff of property going to the husband in the evem of a divorce it onmy mentioned that he had control of it.you did not read the damn article.
The language of thw article is biased.

We are not identical to Britton.

The point still stands that wone were never opressed.
Donestic violence cannot be used as a point because we dint have enough of the other side. How did men deal with it what were their legal recourses.
If it is similar as it is today the most domestic violence is reciprocal and thus not a gendered problem and cannot be used as a sign of gender oppression.

>But most conversations like this are american centric because thisbisban american website expect it and deal with it.

It's Japanese owned actually. And these discussions are international because "human history" is not the same as "American history".

>They only explain the legal imbalances from her persoective how many wome were abusive to their husbands? How many were abused in Retaliation? What are the recourses of men aho are abused? Where is the silly frying pan tripe come from?

Can you please speak in english? because this made no sense.

As to the point of "But what coud the men do about it?", I've already addressed that, stop just asking the same question.

>Thats how the marrage contract worked men litterly purchased childrem from Women

Jesus Christ, are you literally retarded? Do you not know what a marriage even is? It's not a business contract where you exchange money for children you moron.

>You privided no oroff of property going to the husband in the evem of a divorce it onmy mentioned that he had control of it

It's almost like that article isn't the only source I provided or something.

>The language of thw article is biased.

>It's wrong because I don't like the way they said it :(

>We are not identical to Britton.

Early america was literally a British colony.

>The point still stands that wone were never opressed.

I've provided an insane amount of proof that this is the case, and you just went "No, doesn't count, women were just as well off as men". Maybe when you go back to school to learn to fucking type, you'll also learn how to read and follow a basic conversation.

>How did men deal with it what were their legal recourses.

Read my fucking posts, jesus christ you're frustrating to talk to. If you're just going to ignore my points that are right there, just don't reply at all, because it's pointless and just makes you look stupid.

Don't expect any more replies if you're just going to keep doing the same thing.

It was started and licenced in the united states and
its now owned by a Japanese man.
Stop being pedantic.
No you have nit addressed any if my questions.
You have to looka at it like a mirror.
The papers only exolore legal imbalances from her persoective. How many women were abusive? How many wome. were abused in Retaliation to their abuse? What sre the recourses of men who are abused.

Yes marrige is exactly that. Hate to burst your romantic bubble. Thats why there is nit benefits ti marr2for men any more.

All the sources say the same thing what do you think a dowery and a dower are? Their the wifes property u the case of a divorce or the husband cannot live up to his provision bargain.

Yes we 'were' but even from our earliest times wer were different hence the 1641 law.

You did not provide an i sane amount of proof you focused on domestic violence and marriage which i am dealing with. Prove that domestic violence is gendered and you may have a point.

You have said nothing about what men can do inthe case of abusive women.

Let me ask you this.
Can opressed people petition parliement over coffee houses? Can they hold lands and title in their own right? Because women could.