What was life as a woman in medieval europe like?

Pretty good I think.

Sexual dimorphism.

Not really. Her worship was one of the things Luther sperged about.

>qt smelly peasant girls with dirty feet

Depends on what estate the woman was a part of..

If we leave Europe and venture into the Islamic world, it gets even greater. Books could ne written about the harems, but a slave girl could rise to be the most powerful person in the land by being the mother of the sultan. This would lead to tons of assassination plots.

Like Game of Thrones

>rape, rape, forced marriage, rape, abuse, sexism aaaaaaaaaaand more rape

>worship

It's called veneration you Calvinist.

As ever, history isn't a linear progression.

The widespread acceptance of Feminism in the West isn't the inevitable conclusion of the inexorable improvement of women's rights. It is just a momentary bloom, like a yeast infection or something. Effort needs to be made to sustain it, however this kind of think is difficult to control, so in the grand scheme of things it will ebb again.

>These exceptions don't prove the rule at all!

Retarded /pol/ fueled revisionism,kill yourself.

Don't you have some Roman buildings to demolish, Sixtus?

rape increases the chances of conception, it's built into our dna

depends on class

note that when they say "treat ladies well" they meant ladies as in female nobility.

>medieval europe
First of all, Europe didn't exist in the middle ages.

Second of all, you need to be more specific. 14th century England? 8th century Ireland? Medieval covers a timespan of around 1000 years.

>you will never pick a pretty but dirty peasant girl to be your wife
>you will never dress her in pretty gowns and teach her all the weird courtly manners
>she will never fall madly in love with you for being nice to someone belong your station

Can you name those three books? would be interesting to read.

what a dumb fantasy

This.

This.

Also this.

Not that they were feeling bad about it though. It is better to get raped from time to time than to get drafted and become a cannon/arrow fodder and fight at vanguard with an average life expectancy of 1-2 years.

>It is better to get raped from time to time than to get drafted and become a cannon/arrow fodder and fight at vanguard with an average life expectancy of 1-2 years.
You know literally nothing about medieval warfare

Alright enlighten me. I thought we were not talking about the noble class but women in general whom are mostly plebian peasants. Do you imply peasants had higher life expectancy than nobles?

Although many soldiers during medieval wars would be under a feudal obligation, usually these weren't some farming peasants. Even during times when everyone was expected to serve (such as England during the hundred years war) they weren't really, they simply paid an additional tax to avoid fighting.

A more minor point is that generally arrows wouldn't cause massive amounts of death and I don't think cannons were deployed directly on the battlefield during the middle ages (I think they were more of a siege weapon?) but regardless the idea of cannon fodder in general wasn't en vogue.

A vanguard would be very dangerous though, you're right about that, though the vanguard only got more dangerous into the early-modern period.

Basically it's not a case of 'get raped or get drafted and die after a year'. Most men wouldn't be fighters (rather they'd be farmers) so that doesn't really apply.

Cannons have been used on European battlefields since the 14th century.

Cannon fodder was a phrase. You replied to its literal meaning. Medieval (moderns too actually) males had a quite lower life expectancy than females; that was my point.

Who let fat roastie on the history board?

not an argument

Are you legitimately autistic?

Many people would rather live a short interesting life, than a long painful life full of trauma and abuse. It's not a matter of what is worse, it depends on the person. I have talked to women who said they would rather be killed than raped. Even some men, so such a comparison by itself of "who had it worse "is pointless.

Veeky Forums literally gets its knowledge of the Medieval period from Game of Thrones, it's fucking ridiculous

lol right?
dude, you understand that if it was a peasant she wouldn't be qt, right? you understand she'd be mentally retarded, right? you understand she wouldn't know what the love is your talking about, and that she'd be like a fucking wild animal, and not in a sexy beneath the sheets way.

best part though is the whole idea that even a retarded starved and bestial human would still probably hate you for being a GIGANTIC faggot, even if she couldn't articulate why you're a faggot

i can though. try getting outside and seeing how "raising up the lower class and expecting them to be grateful" turns out in real life you double faggot. if you were a fucking noble you'd be dead fucking meat, and good riddance

Is school out for winter break? Why is Veeky Forums acting up?

This. Before the Mary myth and Christians came along Women were able to teach (for instance). Christianity (Justy) took that away for a bit- Burned women professors for heresy.

Women were more or less bought and sold as property between two men (father and husband). The peasant women arguably held the most diverse roles- brewing beer, cooking, midwifing, tailoring etc. While the rich bitches were mostly learning how to dress, behave to attract a rich husband of high status- couple learned to read.

>I have talked to women who said they would rather be killed than raped.
I've talked to 16 year-olds who tell me they're going to kill themselves before they let their parents tell them who they can and can't date (and one actually did, fuck me, but that's not the point). The point being that 99% of women wouldn't kill themselves after rape, because get this: DYING SUCKS and our bodies and minds work very very hard on an instinctual level to keep us alive.

This also kind of connects to the rest of your dumb post, because guess what: While some people are stupid enough to say, "Oh yeah I'd rather live a short life full of excitement and die young" rather than "Oh yeah I'd like to live a long boring awful life" what they REALLY mean is that they want to live a long exciting life, and you'll find it's going to be true every time that the stupid fuck who pissed his life away for some lulz entertainment or fun, when faced with the consequences, will beg and plead for his life.

Experience cures stupidity more often than anything else can (and given, it's not very effective, but relatively, it is effective). So keep that in mind when you say dumbfuck things like,

>Many people would rather live a short interesting life, than a long painful life full of trauma and abuse.

Because NO, people don't want to die young. People assume something will save them from dying, until they're dead, and then it's over. Everyone who says they want to live an exciting short life is saying they want to live that "short" life forever.

>Angry tumblrite detected

But since I'm a beneficent patriarch I'll inform you:

>Women were more or less bought and sold as property between two men (father and husband)

Directly contradicts:

>While the rich bitches were mostly learning how to dress, behave to attract a rich husband of high status- couple learned to read.

I mean, if I'm kind to you I could suggest you might be saying poor women had it rough... But so did men, you dumb fucking bint.

If I'm being mean to your dumb ass I could point out that TWO GENDERS are involved in an arranged marriage, you swollen hambeast servant of the dark god of femi-nazinism. If you don't understand that, let me spell it out: A BOY AND A GIRL ARE BOTH TRAPPED IN AN ARRANGED MARRIAGE, BECAUSE IT IS ARRANGED BY THE PARENTS.

Now say something plithy and go run off and start complaining about parents like you must often do, you summerfagging vacationer.

If you're rich...
>Raised for the expressed purpose of breeding
>Inactive life
>No choice of a sexual partner
>Lots of leisure
>High expectations
>Low responsibility

If you're poor...
>Raised to work your family's soil and manage a household
>Active life
>Lots of time to fuck around with young men until one of them gets you pregnant
>Little leisure time
>Low expectations
>High responsibility

I agree until "a couple leared to read"are we talking about the low or high middle ages? For most of the high middle ages, all noble women were expected to be knowledge able of the classics and definitely know how to read.

I don't think men are inherently scum, but the inequality of power allowed men to abuse women pretty freely throughout history. This dynamic didn't make abuse possible, but also acceptable, because women's concerns were generally considered less important than those of men.

As relationships become more equal, it seems like we're seeing emotional and physical abuse become more evenly distributed against both men and women.

>equality
Spooky

Except the women who said this were women not [16 year old]girls....and all jokes and dramatics aside, you do know the suicide rate for rape victims is pretty high right? You can't be this ignorant? Obviously, not every women thinks this, however. It varies with people. Thus, making such sweeping generalizations on who has it worse is pointless. People's subjective experiences differ.

wtf am I reading

I don't think you've ever spoken to a poor person, user

Leftypol go home

Peasants didn't fight in medieval wars, generally

Wearing pretty dresses and learning to attract men so that their father's can make them marry whoever he chooses in many cases. How do those phrases contradict? Before you say, some men didnt have a choice either! I will also point out that while many cases women had no choice of the husband, there was also no gaurantee he wasn't an abusive asshole. On top of that, raping your wife wasn't illegal until the 70s.

If you're rich...
>Raised to manage a household, or manage a nation
>A life spent always around people
>Must make the best of marriage, as for both men and women it was a tool
>Leisure is looked down on as a peasant's trait
>High expectations with high rewards, becoming queen was a single marriage away, or a single valiantly fought battle
>Extremely high responsibility

If you're poor...
>Raised by your oldest sibling, probably badly
>Brutal life spent in manual labor or pumping out children
>No time to do anything, as simply surviving takes all you have
>No exceptions
>No personal responsibility

See what I've done? Your shit breakdown is evidence of absolutely no critical thinking. History covers external events. Written by men, for men. Do you think no one made sure things got done in a castle or manor? What do you think women did all day? How the hell do you see your points as being valid for how life was for women back in the day?

I'm assuming you're
If not, Veeky Forums is kind of a terrible place.

>Lots of time to fuck around with young men until one of them gets you pregnant
>Little leisure time

You do see how you can't have both of these right?

>Lots of leisure
>High expectations
>Low responsibility

Again, you see what you're doing here?

You just keep spewing out these conflicting descriptions of how life was for women in the past. Can't you just say you have no idea, and it was probably normalized for women whatever it was, and they lived and laughed and cried like humans have done since forever(sic)?

>life as a woman in medieval europe
Depended on social status and regional stability.
Generally the nobility lived refined lives compared to the peasantry who lived obedient lives of toil. Nothing changed for about a thousand years and nobody went anywhere or did anything.

Correlation and causation
But first, a lesson on reading comprehension:

Me
>Experience cures stupidity more often than anything else can
You
>People's subjective experiences differ

Now back to C&C:
1. People kill themselves after being raped because rape is just so objectively awful
2. People kill themselves after rape because in today's society they can never escape the fact they were RAPED and are RAPE survivors and have been RAPED and oh my god did you forget you were RAPED? Here let us just underline how AWFUL it was you were RAPED and we totally understand it's JUST SO AWFUL that it's being NORMALIZED that you kill yourself because YOU WERE RAPED.

Which sounds more likely? Is my bias showing? Rape culture isn't the culture of today's men, it's the culture of today's views on rape- it's perpetrated by women to denigrate rape victims and make them feel less than what they are, which is a sexually assaulted woman. Stupid fucking social engineers have put rape on a pedestal, and guess who gets hurt? NOT RAPISTS LOL!11!1!! It's the poor fucking sexually abused women who don't have enough experience with life to say to themselves, "I was raped. Life goes on," or don't have anyone to help them understand this THAT SUFFER. It's fucking AWFUL and people like you further that and deserve to be lynched as you go about professing subjective experiences dictate all of life and calling others ignorant.

Not that user, but there's a world of difference between a 1100's era peasant and a poor person today right?

Nutrition was a big deal back then, and his claims, while inflammatory, are not wrong.

you forgot that there were Christian morales upheld at that time and your dad could smack you for being a slut. Also, rape by knights when they were extremely bored.

:^)

>Europe didn't exist in the middle ages.

It was normalized yes, but that didn't mean it was good. I'm sure many women hated being women because of how unfair society was likely to them, no matter what they did.

Because if women are trying to attract men, they're not part of an arranged marriage, because attraction has nothing to do with it. This is also the last stupid question I'm feeling generous towards.

>all mehn r abusive asshole
>raping was LEGAL until the 70s
>oh my god women has no rights evarr

I summed it up for you.
1. How often do you think women were raped in a marriage? What do you think that means?

I think women in a marriage can be raped. I don't think you can use it to claim that arranged marriages were shit. Maybe you want to say marriage was always shit? K, but that's a whole different can of dicks- sorry, of worms.

2. Women can't be abusive? How crazy are your female beliefs? Women don't beat men over the head with bats (very often), but according to women today you can abuse (and serve significant jail time) for just posting shit online that hurts someone's feelings! Hell, you can make people kill themselves via words online! No muscles needed for that, or at least no muscles women are lacking in.

3. Women didn't get covered fairly in history. It sucks. On the other hand I kind of don't really care all that much. There are better things to worry about in the present.

You got me

But they did, user. I think it was only Matthais Corvinus in the late 15th century who started the tradition of permanent standing armies, before that it was just levied peasants, mercenaries and some knights.

>It was normalized yes
>I'm sure many women hated being women because of how unfair society was
You understand what normalization is, don't you? I can only assume you don't. If you knew what it meant, you'd understand you're looking at things in the past, which were normalized for past people, and trying to normalize them for today.

What makes you think all peasants were ugly and mentally retarded?

Many rape victims that blame themselves are the ones who often commit suicide/dangerous behaviors. Research was done on this. That's why feminist want to stop victim blaming as much as possible. I suggest you look this up. On top of that, I have heard such an argument before, but it fails since we have no record of how many women committed suicide over depression over rape. the few cases in the past that I read interestingly enough, kind of treated the suicide/killing of a woman after her rape as somewhat expected since women are "soft"/it was for the best(as sad was it was).

Medieval women were, at best, treated with general disregard and given a prohibitive lifestyle and, at worst, treated horribly. This is true for most medieval people, but exemplified in women.

Please fuck off /r9k/ and /pol/ revisionists.

Critical thinking dictates that what you're using as proof is actually proof of what made original user say stupid shit about saving them; IE romanticized. If you need me to explain more, I will. I will have to argue though, that an artist's rendition of an ugly girl as qt would earn him much more money in future payments, than rendering an ugly girl ugly.

The problem of rape is that modern definition is nothing like what our ancestors thought about the concept.

>rape in the 30 years war
Soldiers breaks into your house, forces himself onto you, shatters your pelvis and breaks your arms to prevent you from struggling and then violates you so hard with his unwashed cock you'll have internal bleeding for the next 5 months and beats you senseless for good measure.

>rape today
"I got drunk and I sucked some guy's cock so yeah I was pretty much raped"

t. doesn't know about middle ages

Medieval women :
>held the keys for money box
>decided how to run the household
>could divorce their husband if useless impotent cuck
>could in theory be lesbians since the sodomy law explicitly stated penetration with a penis or penis like object
While women had little power in public life p much everything surrounding the house and who does what and how to spend money was in the hand of women
Personally I'd rather have fought in the crusades but w/e

>I have heard such an argument before, but it fails since we have no record

'Feminists' as I speak of it includes anyone who calls themselves such, which is like 90% of people? Feminists as you speak of it must be like 4-5%, and that's me being generous to you in what I assume your beliefs are.

The truth is it doesn't matter what you want. Media makes it out to be awful. Maybe it always had. The truth is that objectively the act of rape is an assault. Subjectively it can be anything. Cutting off an artist's fingers might be worse than death for him. Raping a virgin in love might be worse than death for her. You see that it's not rape that's so awful. It's how the mob views things. The mob is awful in a way rape can never be, because it takes bad things and makes them into giants, monoliths that consume people whole. Also if you're going to try and argue that your 'readings' give your opinion credence, please don't preface them by saying 'few.' I'll give you that I'm happy you're not claiming to be a social scientist or a gender student, but then again, if you were I'd be laughing, so maybe you are, and you have just enough social awareness not to share that little detail and devalue your argument that... Wait, what is your argument?

No seriously, what is it? That society doesn't turn a sexual assault into a case of life and death? Oh no I'm laughing again at you.

Your projecting your own frustrations on a past you know little about. If it makes you feel like your crusading for some higher cause, good for you! Who am I to judge?

Your irrational hatred for a period of history is hilarious.

I'm not reading the rest of your comment because I never said ALL MEN were abusive assholes. I never even,said most. I did say: that as a women, you were expected to be attractive (hell women still are!) whether the marriage is arranged or not. Yiu are a fool if somehow that fact flew over your head. And that in these arranged marriages they had no choice in most of the time, there was no gaurantee (as in there was still a chance) that he could be abusive. If a wife was abusive to the man(I think this case was extremely rare and if it did happen often, it likely did not go on for long) he could always divorce her.
Arranged marriages still go on today in many parts of India, I know people who had one. I wouldn't do it and I don't really agree with it but, I can't say they could never workout . I'm sure there are plenty of happy ones, especially on this day and age.
Rape in marrage became officially a punishable crime after the 60s. You can look that easily up yourself. I'm not making this up. I also never said women had NO rights, just not as many. Stop thinking in extremes,because I don't.

Pretty hellish.

Noblewomen were born to breed and were pretty universally locked into pedophilic relationships with husbands they could not choose. King John Plantagenet married Isabella of France when she was only 12 years old. He did not wait to consummate, nor was he expected to.

Poor women were essentially the sexual property of rich men. There were no social protections against rape by noblemen and their sons, which was rampant -- especially in wartime. The work of Martin of Tours reveals how sexual violence was so horrifically normalized against early medieval women.

>thinks all women aren't asking for it

People are born to breed period.

What's my cause I'm crusading for then? I'm judging you, and most of the people posting here, and I admit it. I'm user, that's who I am to judge, and also a happy fuck you to you! Good bait!

Seriously though, what do you think my cause is? Because so far all I'm doing is pointing out inconsistencies in how people view women in the past.

What do you think my frustrations are?
Tip: My frustrations should be obvious in that I get pissed when I see people discussing something like idiots with no care to even read what they're typing.

Yes, you are right about one thing though. Good for me! And good for (you)!

Raping your wife is a pretty idiotic concept if you think about it. She already gave you her consent when she married you, marital rape is as much of a nonsense as saying paying monthly internet bill is theft.

No, not peasants. Levies included noblemen and their professional bands of men-at-arms.

Mary's risen status is purely a male obsession with finding a pure female. She is held up purely as a 'Virgin'.

She has been created by men purely to be admired. Her admiration was a necessity to her creation.

This is much like how male artists will depict naked females as being coy or rather promiscuous but simultaneously will judge them in the painting. The necessity of their creation is to be judged, to fulfil the artist's prejudices.

Anyone who thinks Mary's figure actually served to significantly calm male appetite throughout history are deluding themselves.

>Under the feudal conditions for holding land in the medieval period, most peasants and freemen were liable to provide one man of suitable age per family for military duty when required by either the king or the local lord. The levies raised in this way fought as infantry under local superiors. Although the exact laws varied greatly depending on the country and the period, generally these levies were only obliged to fight for one to three months. Most were subsistence farmers, and it was in everyone's interest to send the men home for harvest-time.

Almost as easy as it is for women now.
>muh cramps

Again,for the comprehension-impair
>I'm sure many women hated being women
As in, I get they expected to be treated those ways or experience the things they did. Meaning, I get it was normalized. They expected to be treated that way because they were women. However, because of this, "I'm sure many women hated being women" i.e. probably wished at least a little bit, that the could have been born men. Do you under stand now?

That's why Freud s "theory"...no assumption that women naturally had penis envy fell on its face so hard; It didn't account for the fact that it could easily be because of their treatment by society.

We have direct accounts of literal medieval commoners, check out the Diary of Margery Kempe. Turns out they weren't too different from us.

d.lib.rochester.edu/teams/publication/staley-the-book-of-margery-kempe

>I'm not reading the rest
I read your post, but if you're not reading mine I'm going to go cry. OH WAIT!

>I never even,said most
You implied it, otherwise why bring it up? If some men murder, does it mean men murder? Does it mean all men are guilty? Does it mean...

>I did say: that as a women, you were expected to be attractive
Expectations? Those are your enemy? Grow a backbone and be yourself, or get offline, because guess what, if you can't stand being expected to be something by someone else, you belong in a crib.

>he could always divorce her.
Well... No, not really. There was this whole Church of England thing about that as a matter of fact... Oh nevermind. You can look it up. This is basic history (which I'm implying you don't have any grasp of, since you seem a little dense and emotional).

>I'm sure there are plenty of happy ones, especially on this day and age.
Wait, so what are you saying then? Like what is your point? Did you just agree with me that the shit women had to go through wasn't all that bad compared to what everyone had to go through back then? Holy shit, we've made progress. In honor of this I shall be kind to you now:

>Rape in marrage became officially a punishable crime after the 60s. You can look that easily up yourself. I'm not making this up. I also never said women had NO rights, just not as many. Stop thinking in extremes,because I don't.
Love, listen to me. I'm an extremist according to some people. They have expectations of my extreme nature. I don't let those get to me. Rape became officially punishable, yes. I'm glad you said officially, because guess what, it was still fucked up! No argument! Fucked up things happen.

Also did I say women has no rights? I really don't think I've said anything near that. I've implied women had more rights than the bulk of people in this thread seem to want to believe, but mostly I've just been ripping on people talking down about women's places and circumstances in the past.

>Do you under stand now?
Ye-

>That's why Freud s "theory"...no assumption that women naturally had penis envy fell on its face so hard; It didn't account for the fact that it could easily be because of their treatment by society.

Wait no I lost you. Fuck, and we were SO close!

>classics
not until late middle ages.

Early/mid middle ages it was all bible shit.

you seemed so triggered. you're trying too hard mate. Chill out a bit. Enjoy your winter break.

nothing I said directly contradicts anything i said.

Women were bought and sold as property (think dowry) Not all marriages were arranged- and men usually had the final say in whether the marriage was to take place.

i'm sure you can head over to your mra subreddit and discuss this issue.

>but so did men

The topic was about women. I guess you have some reading to do? or...assigned homework? What's on your christmas list this year? hoping santa will bring you a nintendo?

You clearly aren't Catholic, yet profess to know about why Catholics venerated Mary and how they feel about her more than Catholics themselves. I bet you've never read any medieval writings on Mary, never read any books on the divine mother/divine feminine which aren't new age (at best) and are generally fuck all's authority on the subject. But here you are, arrogantly asserting you "know better" than Catholics for the reason they venerate Mary.

>Here is a peasant who could write

What is a peasant again? Turns out... Oh right she recorded this on a sound recorder her husband ran by turning a wheel in between slaving away under a feudal lord all day.

You sir (or is it xir? eh fuck it) are thinking of MIDDLE class people. I agree, people who are well fed and are taught to read and write and compose their thoughts in a legible manner usually have a lot in common with other people who have lived in the same general mental circumstances! Yay! This has been so productive!

So you agree with my stance on subjective experiences? People appraise an event as "worst than death" depending on their own feelings. I don't agree this necessarily has to include a mob opinion.Otherwise, it wouldn't really be subjective.
I don't think everyone in society should think rape is as bad as death. That is the opposite of my argument. I clearly mentioned subjective experience for a reason. I just said there are women who do see rape as worst than death and those who do not. The same could be said of men.
For that reason, it makes no sense for anyone to say women in the past or men in the past had it worst overall because one groups was more likely to be killed than raped or vice versa. Some of those raped living women left alive may have rather been dead, maybe most. Who knows?

No, I'm an actual scientist. you don't need a degree in any of those social sciences or humanties to be knowledgeable in them.

>No, I'm an actual scientist. you don't need a degree in any of those social sciences or humanties to be knowledgeable in them.

This is what STEMfags actually believe

I actually don't agree with your stance on subjective experiences, but this isn't the place to get into it. Suffice it to say that if you're going to look at ten virigins in love who are raped, and the boyfriend leaves them, you will find that there's little subjective to the individual in how they respond. Nevermind, forget I wrote that.

>I don't think everyone in society should think rape is as bad as death.
Good.

> I just said there are women who do see rape as worst than death and those who do not.
I've responded to so many people, sorry if I'm not on top of exactly what you said or eager to re-read the whole thread. If that was all you said, what did it have to do with the OP's topic? I've been arguing mostly against the idea that women have somehow had it SUPER CRAZY WAY worse than men and were BASICALLY LIVESTOCK in the past.

>For that reason, it makes no sense for anyone to say women in the past or men in the past[...]
Ah, so you did say something about the past then? I have no idea what your point to this is. I'm not saying anything like what you're implying I've said. Who knows? Well that's a helpful sentiment. I think it's logical to assume women suffered differently than men, but that as is constant with life at all times, everyone suffers, except the lucky few.

>you don't need a degree
There's hope for you yet then! Now just buckle down and actually put forward an opinion on how you think women had it in the past. Do you think they suffered more then, in relation to their society as a whole, and women did say, thirty years ago, or even today? And then tell me why it matters to you, what would you use that knowledge for? I find it's good perspective, but I worry many people use it as fodder for well intentioned, but ultimately horribly destructive behavior and opinions.

You can't understand Mr because you are too foolish to stop thinking in extremes, so you assume I do the same. I mention some men abusing and that has to somehow imply I think it happened all the time? What type of logic is that? Where did you go to school?
Im,not mad about expectations! Where did you get that from? I mentioned that to counter the silly point you made about women being taught to be attractive to men and arranged marriage" were opposing ideas. Unless you want to explain the point of that quote.
Alright fine he could "anull it. " Regardless the abuse would rarely(if ever) be going on for long. Moreover, women were overy hemline taught to be kind, respectful and submissive to men anyway.

>What was life as a woman in medieval europe like?
well you actually had kids and knew how to raise them for starters

TL;DR Freud is a hack. I referenced him real quick to stylistically prove my point. I assumed everyone here knew about his incorrect theories that he pulled from his ass. I guess you're in highschool or something.
He coined the term "penis envy " as a biological fact in women that they wanted to be men.
If woman ever had penis envy i.e "hated being women" and wanted to be men, it certainly wasn't natural as,he suggested. It was because how society treated women.

Fuuuuck it's late and I have to make dinner, so here's a parting 2-fer for two of the stupidest anons in this thread. I'm sorry. I couldn't resist coming back for both of you.
If you're serious about all that... I'll just assume most of it is satire. Most of if it incomprehensible, but I'll do my best. First: Women had one job in society. Men another. They both suffered for different reasons in the past. It's nice we're living today
(There, I spelled out my opinion for you real clear and concise so you don't have to keep putting words in my mouth or misconstruing my problems with your shitty logic and poor use of the English language).
So... You referenced something random as a stylistic influence, and you got so confused about me mocking you that you continued to explain (very poorly) what you were trying to imply? If I was a troll I'd be locked into some kind of cackling laughter spasm.
Please, just consider this: I am mocking you for being stupid. You don't need to keep replying to me, because it only makes it more apparent how deserving you are of mockery rather than conversation.

In the case of the virgins, you sure you're not, like some people, confusing consensual rough sex with non-consensual? Why would a virgin girl still be in love with the man who raped her? I can't imagine such a case.
> Do you think they suffered more then, in relation to their society as a whole, and women did say, thirty years ago, or even today?
Compared to today? Yeah, especially if we're talking about different countries.
Anyway, I think with some of the things many women may have suffered, (as men also suffered) on top of the rights they did not have that men did overall, it tilts towards an overall negative situation compared to men. So yeah they kind of had it worse on the oppression scale.

What did peasants do to make you so triggered?