Fem

So?

I don't know, that guy has appears to have some serous mommy issues

Nice argument

Assuming you're not memeing what rights do you believe women "got" that brought Rome's fall?

They could already own property and all the privileges that brought as early as the Republic (an oddity in the hellenistic world)

great theory. funny how the high tax socialist states in Scandinavia have low birth rates.

As far as i understand it, and keep in mind i have read this a long time ago.

A Roman Female would inherit the property of the male upon divorce as long as they had a child.

A Roman Female did not need a reason for divorce.

A Roman Female had cultural changes related to her behavior. She became more sexually liberal instead of providing a supportive role in society in the popular depictions.

A Roman Female started to be seen as expected to handle accounting and was able to have purchasing power in the household.

However they still needed a representative in court that was male. And this is when cheating became commonplace to divorce. This then fueled a way of making money for these females who became more and more powerful. They started fucking men and divorcing as a way of life.

The perfect female life became portrayed as a materialistically woman who could delve into her hedonistic desires with her foreign slaves while maintaining a weak husband who could provide with a steady flow of cash.

Literal cuckoldry was a big thing. And they were especially attracted to foreigners instead of the previous pride for the military husband who would serve the republic.

>As far as i understand it, and keep in mind i have read this a long time ago.

Out of someone's arse by the sounds of it. Relations between the sexes were hardly equal in Rome but it was not the islamic wonderland /pol/acks imagine it to be.

Women could divorce in earliest ages of the republic and it was generally considered a private affair. I have not read anything about some kind of systemic exploitation of supposed "divorce laws" on the part of the female roman populace, unless you can provide an actual source.

Man you /pol/fags are obsessed.

What's wrong with cuckolding? Would you prefer the child not growing up with a father?

>The perfect female life became portrayed as a materialistically woman who could delve into her hedonistic desires with her foreign slaves while maintaining a weak husband who could provide with a steady flow of cash.
t-that's kind of hot

i wouldn't mind a wife like this as long as she only makes babies with me and her lovers are only for sex

I'm not really a /pol/tard looking for justification although i do go there. i'm Brazillian and am unaffected by immigration.

I will look for the sources but to be truthful i might not be able to find it at this point. I can find you blogposts but i dont think that's what you want. Either way i will try.

I mean literal cuckolding. As in male sex slaves that your wife had specifically for fucking while you were still married. With the husband's consent. He even paid for it most of the time. Sex beasts.
And your wife would let other women fuck the same slave for political favors or influence or just status friendship. Cucking your would be friend for political purposes.

They would actually become pregnant with babies from the slaves as well but mostly you woudnt know who was the father. The Roman would raise it either way and the female could very well divorce and take the child if left unsatisfied.

>They would actually become pregnant with babies from the slaves as well but mostly you woudnt know who was the father. The Roman would raise it either way and the female could very well divorce and take the child if left unsatisfied.
well yeah, they didn't have birth control and paternity tests obviously, that's what makes it fucked up, the greeks had it right with women

Good point because this all came as an misinterpretation to Greek culture.

Greeks valued freedom. But that was the freedom of individual self rulership and they understood the power and responsibility of that. They understood that being fat was not a virtue. It meant that you lacked the freedom over your desires to rule yourself into being what a proper man is supposed to be.

Romans on the other hand understood freedom as sexual freedom. As ownership freedom. As happiness seeking freedom.

So while the Greeks would free themselves at a spiritual level by becoming better, the Romans would free themselves from worry through intoxicants and distractions.

...

>americans

will you ever understand women had to work just as hard if not harder in medieval times than men? or before

the sit home do nothing was only for the high class

Y-yea. Joke... right.

No they didnt past a certain age. That's what children are for. Her job is to provide little workers, knit and craft.

Not every statement is an argument, retard.

LOL. And I thought I had heard some crazy theories of why Rome fell. Now I get to hear a theory that conveniently fits the narratives of woman-haters.

No, although there was some division of labor, peasant women performed the same class of labor as men did.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Middle_Ages#Labour

>men ploughed, mowed, and threshed and women gleaned, cleared weeds, bound sheaves, made hays, and collected woods; and yet others were performed by both, such as harvesting.

fuck off american

I love women. My mother was a woman. My girlfriend is also a woman. Hell even my sister is a woman believe it or not!

Women are great at doing what they are great at doing. Women are not too good when doing things they are not too good a doing. Same thing for men.

Women are fine. In fact, they are necessary i'd say.

I'll go even further and say that at least 90% of men love women. Love them enough to want to be with them for the rest of their lives. Enough to even make new little women with them.
Men love women so damn much that they developed societies to fit to their needs.

But as almost every man and also woman deep inside knows, women don't know what they want. And maybe its men's fault that they try to make them so protected that they feel absolutely uncontested and end up developing into obliviousness. Not realizing that for most men, one of the most important things is to make their family happy and proud. Family always starts with his union with a woman.

Women are so loved and unaware that 60% of men go on without passing their genes while only 20% of women do the same but they see it as justified.

We kill each other for women. We are capable of anything for them. Yet it all goes so over their head that they just join society unaware. Thinking that the suffering of millions is for nothing. Thinking that, somehow, the villains are the ones who just tried to make it so they could do what they wanted and feel safe. And this wasn't arbitrary. Men asked.

Women are great at many things, but one of the things they are not so good at is understanding. Because they never have had to understand. They never have had to think about how someone else feels. They only have always known how they should feel and this is completely fine if you are to be courted. But not if you are one who decides the fate of millions.

Because women were raised throughout history, from the very basis of our culture to be protected, they are simply oblivious about many things. And men are oblivious too to much.

But something we can understand, is how destructive a spoiled brat can be when put in a position of power.

Women discart men because that is what they were raised to do.
Women use men.
Women think of kindness not of consequence.
Women do not think of the whole, but of themselves.
But don't even think of their own as individuals craving accomplishment, but as a spiritualistic being that deserves and crave acceptance and for this reason they will do anything to feel it in the absence of a man.

And this absence is filled by the state. By animals. By having a child on their own. And by bonding with other females who only ever know that they are unhappy and that someone and something is responsible for this. So someone should take charge and make a change.

In Rome, to them, barbarians were preferable to men.

The complete 'freedom' of women to do what they are not engineered to do is what destroys the greatest societies.

The barbarians after all, even at a huge rate of them being males, did not conform to society. They were there to bring it down! To fight it to death! They could bring the empire to their knees and then! THEN! Women would feel finally desired. Once the system was tore down they could finally see a brighter future. They could finally pursue their dreams as there would no longer be law or order. They could finally go out on their own and become part of the world!

Only they did not realize that there was a difference between their slaves and the ones marching through the gates.

Who could blame them? The fighting was completely done by men. It was men who faced the dangers of traveling to the borders to trade. To sail the seas and become rich so they could finally marry one of higher status, swaying her with their eventual wealth.
If only they could do a little bit more than all others maybe they'd be chosen and would not stay the rest of their lives alone. So each and all of them tried.

But women could not possibly understand this. After years of rape destruction and enslavement they were taught though.

New protectors were born. New castles were built and women once again became something to be protected. Once again out of their own desire.

And so the cycle repeats. Let us hope the next barbarians are less bloody than the last. But there are certainly no signs of such thing.

Sure is /r9k/ around here.

tfw drunk 5 am writer

>women haters

wut

Weird how Veeky Forums provides /r9k/ while tumblr provides the white knights.

Veeky Forums is basically nu-r*ddit trash where all serious discussion eventually end up on /r/AskHistorian, mixed in with some miscellaneous /pol/, /leftypol/ and r*ddit

>peasant women performed the same class of labor as men did.

No they didn't, and women didn't prefer to do the harder larbor either, but they did what they had to do to get by while "convincing" the men to do the harder shit, as was expected by society especially one based on such a patriarchal system like Christianity. Saying that basic maintenance work is the same as ploughing and lifting heavy objects constantly is ridiculous. There were some conditions where women needed to be strong as well (see the conditions that lead to the Women's March on Versailles) but the harder labor was almost always deferred to men and husbands because women were less physically able and were expected to be raising children.

This was only for the peasantry as well, in the upper class women were expected to be intelligent enough to take over their husband's affairs in his absence and thats about it, as they were expected to be well read mothers and people of cultural significance.

I don't get where the modern zeitgeist of people bashing on this traditional dualism even comes from, this seems like a basic mode of human behavior expressed everywhere.

t citieh boi who never had to lift anything heavier than a beer

>tfw live in Montana

I could probably out lift and out drink you any time and any palce

>place with free speech
>some controversial opinions aren't controversial for good reason

What do you expect?

>they did what they had to do to get by while "convincing" the men to do the harder shit
Pretty sure men did harder labour voluntarily and out of necessity in most cases.

even if he was would that make him wrong?

>americans
>history

Both men and women in upper classes were lazy who never worked, you autistic idiot.

>physical labour is the only type of labour
t. lower class commie

>All noble classes resembled those of 18th century France

An hero Jacobin scum

>history
>right or wrong
you've much to learn young one

>Pretty sure men did harder labour voluntarily and out of necessity in most cases.

I was implying that men did this voluntarily in order to get laid more often, and that women knew this damn well back than just as much as they know now. Although, some of it was just adherence to tradition I'd imagine.