Was there ever actually a "privilege" from being a male?

No, you're just a beta fuccboi that wants to lash out at modern women because they won't fuck you. If you look even an inkling past the surface of what it was like to be a woman in most countries before today, they had no where near the rights men had. Read a fucking book you dumb nigger.

If you weren't a brainlet, you'd understand that I wasn't agreeing with him. Do you think women didn't want to have a say in their situations? Do you think every woman liked not being able to receive a formal education? Many women did want more responsibilities, but we're denied that option. So yes, there was more pros to being male.

this I agree with, the maternal mortality used to be fucking hardcore
you were probably better off being a Roman legionary than a Roman freshly wed wife

Insulting OP:s mom would have been more respectable than whatever you tried to express there.

Being able to pee standing up

I found the soy eating cuckboi.

they have it all now, and they have a fuckton on top of that, in some countries woman has such obscene advantage over a man in all respects it's crazy and yet they are more fucking miserable than ever
and I'm dying to hear what do have to say about that

why are those delicious privileges making women's lives shit?

Is this post a joke? Obviously men had privledges. They had them since the beginning of time. It's only in the last 30 years where women are now turning the tables.

In a pre-Industrial revolution society, both men and women had different but complementary roles in society, men were more involved in physical work like peasantry, farming, military, etc;, that they are naturally better at, while women were more involved in domestic and nurturing roles that they are more suited for. Both these jobs had their own upsides and downsides, and both were necessary for a functioning society. I think the industrial revolution fucked it up by removing most of the downsides from traditional male jobs while not really affecting the downsides of the traditional female jobs too much, that and for some reasons the newer jobs being created were held from women and feminism came about as a reaction to this. I think if we reverted to a pre-industrial society gender roles might *naturally* revert to a stable state. What think Veeky Forums ?

That's a meme.Childbirth wasn't that dangerous.

>No, you're just a beta fuccboi that wants to lash out at modern women because they won't fuck you. If you look even an inkling past the surface of what it was like to be a woman in most countries before today, they had no where near the rights men had. Read a fucking book you dumb nigger.

Stupid nigger, stop projecting your own feelings onto me. What I'm saying is what it was, not what I want it to be. Yes, women had relatively fewer rights than man, but they also had far less responsibilities than men. Am I wrong?

Never. Females control society and always have, literally the most pampered class of humans that ever existed.

It's fun to theorize about, but i'd give my left nut before going back to the shithole that was pre-industrial society.

Read Esther Vilar.

Because you're a woman.

There was a privilege from being male and there was a privilege from being female, much like today. Keeping the nobles (who were privileged regardless of sex, fuck them) out of the equation, the average male commoner wouldn't feel privileged over his female counterpart, they both had their roles and had to do what they had to do to survive.

Men were the bosses of their household, sure, but they were also the guys that did most of the back breaking work and risk their life going to war. Most marriages were arranged for the better part of history meaning you married your wife not because you fancied her, but because you wanted your families to unite. Beating or mistreating her would be counter intuitive to keeping that union strong, this means most blokes would treat their wives with more respect than the average contemporary drunk treats his.

Cheating was also, again, counter intuitive to the whole point of marriage so it was done very discreetly as it had real consequences for both the man and the woman. That being said most commoners would spent their days working and their nights fucking. They needed lots of kids because there was no modern medicine back then, meaning a kid could die stillborn or be struck by a cold and die before he even turns 10. So as others pointed out, women were mainly breeders, that was their most valued function, they worked much less then their man.

It was shit for both sexes, really, they didn't care about what privileges they had over one another, they cared more shit that they need to survive like food, water, firewood, clothes etc.

I'm a man and I care about my cock and balls, I wouldn't want to loose them when the village witch says that's the only way I'l get cured of slow fever.

Put more into the system, get more out of it. I don't see how that is privilege.

Hey get the fuck out of here with your sensible answers and mostly impartial reasoning.
Don't you know that the point of these threads is to just scream "cuck" or "virgin " at each other.

Not bleeding every month

>Men were the bosses of their household, sure, but they were also the guys that did most of the back breaking work

No.

>but they were also the guys that did most of the back breaking work and risk their life going to war.

luckily they fought only in areas populated exclusively by men so men were always the only people in danger during times of war

zzz brainlet

>I care about my cock and balls
you sound like a pussy
do you also care about your limbs and inner organs?

A man can do more physically gruelling work but in the common classes women often had just as much work, raising the children, cooking, doing laundry (by fucking hand), spinning wool (takes fucking forever to make just one shitty tunic), making lye and soap, tending, slaughtering, and butchering smaller animals, and doing hauling water and food to market or the mill. Men are stronger and have more endurance so divided the labor. Both sexes in an agrarian society have so much fucking work. You have no idea what you're all talking about.

There were legal benefits absolutely, but those were only ever endulged in by a fraction of society. The cultural benefits for women though were used by most women. So take you're pick of oppression faggot.

>No, you're just a beta fuccboi that wants to lash out at modern women because they won't fuck you.
It doesn't matter what board or what topic. If it involves anything negative woman or not offering sympathy for one, someone, without fail, will resort to some variation of this tired tactic.

Living is a privilege granted moatly to men in some societies and in China as a whole female babies were often/still often culled and male babies allowed to live. In many tribe societies girls are caretakers of their sibling as children and handle a majority of the housework at 16 while males are allowed to play and be children.

No.
But this thread is already too much ruined to go further.

Woman are forbidden from driving in Saudi Arabia but they can be pilots which is weird

bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/medical/infanticide_1.shtml

Imagine getting cut off in traffic by a woman in a society where you can behead them for dressing immodestly.

We should behead anyone who doesn't use their indicator fucking animals

A life of responsibility is difficult and doesn't assume happiness all the time, yes, but it's worth it to control your own destiny. Many women, maybe not all, are ok with the difficulties of having a career and managing stuff outside the home since at the end of the day, it's what THEY chose to do.
Women tend to choose careers out of satisfaction than money anyway(though the two aren't mutually exclusive).

>*allowed* to put more into the system
ftfy
This since they were the only sex assumed to be mentally competent( and in a few societies, human).
Women were not allowed to do any of those things even if they wanted to(and believe me, at least some wanted to despite how they were raised). This goes for even the less physically demanding,unless it was inside the home.

Male privilege arose from the simple fact that men are physically stronger than women. Plus child rearing being extremely dangerous and limiting to women. And men having greater variance in intelligence (women are more cooped around the average while there's more idiot and genius men).

The game's simply rigged against women by biology.

can someone confirm this, or provide a source? It seems odd to me that childbirth, a natural function of the human female would be so dangerous. I understand sanitation was bad, but it still seems odd.

A baby's head is fucking huge and a woman's pelvis extremely narrow.

You have a better chance of getting your cock cut off in modern America than in pre-industrial Europe. At birth at that.

Humans aren't like most animals, or even chimps. It's hard to give birth when you're a biped and trying to squeeze out a non-brainlet.

>but women were treated more or less like belongings in most parts of the world.
Care to explain why this is a bad thing? First person to be looked after, among the first to flee when shit hits the fan and pretty, much is always secured so long as the husband can provide.

Farm work and house work is a good trade off for constant security and never actually having to do anything.

This

I guess. Men are clearly the actors in human society though. Only with modern technology and civilization can women even make any meaningful impact. Physically a women's entire body is dedicated towards reproduction. Men had to take all other roles for the species. So obviously they ended up being the ones directing society once civilization began. Modern women are the ones truly privileged, they happened to born in a time where they aren't limited to their physical being. That goes for many people alive today though, most people should probably be dead for whatever reasons.

War mainly consisted of marches, battles and sieges. Every village had time to evacuate to the nearest city or to the mountains, or even other nations if they heard word marauders are coming to town. Read up a bit and you'l see many examples of this, faraway wars lead to a population surplus in better-off countries. Anyone with half a brain will abandon his lands if it means surviving.

And if they didn't, sure, the women and the kids risked getting raped and enslaved, but the men marched through disease ridden swamps, fought in brutal battles where their friends died and suffered crippling wounds. There's a difference between risking your life by going to war and risking your life by farming in warring lands, and if you can't see that you're the biggest brainlet in this thread.

>The privilege to own land
>The privilege to vote
>The privilege to divorce and not end up in perpetual poverty
>The privilege to financially support yourself
>The privilege to run for office

so now those women and children are uprooted from their lives and forced to become migrants temporarily with(or possibly permanently ) with no home under not exactly pleasant conditions due to a war they did not start nor could have no influence in. Btw, thwy still have the chance of being harmed by bandits on the road.
I'm not saying it's exactly the same, I'm just saying you're retarded for thinking it's anywhere near pleasant.

>first person to be looked after
not always true, you're thinking mostly of children
>First person to flee when shit hits the fan
True enough but not always successful.
>secure as,long as husband can provide
depending in the class, not often the case. Stupid decisions by stupid/incompentent husbands (who the where rarely able to speak out against) could fuck them over big time too.
>never actually having to do anything
nor being allowed to for that matter.

Could you please point out the specific part where he said it was "anywhere near pleasant"?

Thank you.

Not in Egypt, men could not run the household and women could not join the military. Everything else they could do as they pleased.

Pretty much.

If you were male you could be anyone you wanted. If you were born female, the ceiling was already set in life and your opportunities were limited.

Physical power is the obvious source of this so-called privilege. Power in the physical sense is not privilege because it is essentially inherent on some level. Privilege is a gift. Unless these feminist-types want to acknowledge God (they never will, they are self-worshipping humanists), then they cannot possibly claim that a happening caused the generality of biological males throughout the many species superior physical strength. Their brand of fatalism demands that strength not be a 'privilege', but a burden. Thus, men are not oppressors, but victims of occurrence. Their true enemy is the planet, or existence itself for producing conditions for rise of the planet, and its conditions for the happening that gave the generally of males in the many species superior strength.

Feminist-types and humanists also do not admit this because they are overflowing with Ressentiment. When the meaningless universe that they cling to does not fit into their mould, they search for a scapegoat who also has the capacity (power) to popularize their scapegoating. This is why they picked men.

The only solution to this is to admit meaning, and an active creator, and intelligent design, and creationism. This is the only way that a social system could be set to be against women consciously, rather than passively through pragmatic development. For these reasons, feminism should never be taken seriously. It cannot even take itself seriously.

Inheritance of property is a pretty big one in most early societies for males.

I meany as in their lives weren't much easier than the soldiers they were running away from in than hat context. Worse in someway since th e couldn't defend themselves at all.

Can you behead them for not sleeping with you?

we actually had a great thread talking about the differences between a patriarchy and matriarchy that touched upon this and the prerequisites needed for each to exist. I wonder why you didn't participate?
Perhaps because this is a shit board for high levels of discourse but I digress.
Male privilege in patriarchy goes beyond physical strength and gender roles. If efficiency was tbe only thing valued, men would do the all hard labor and women would do all the less rigourous labor including manage the state.
This was not the case however, showing that there was more to this than simple sex differences.

meant*

Men still had the privilege of coming before women in the line of succession though.

No, there's no such thing as gender/racer privilege.

It's not, a kid was more likely to die early in life than childbirth killing the mom or kid. This "narrow hips" shit is nonsense. The body loosens those up real good. It was more dangerous to give birth without modern medicine or sanitation, but not as much as some would think.

>All of history for all time everywhere was just as patriarchal as the victorian era in eurpoe.
In general most societies gave men more external responcibility and women more internal responcibility. It was fairly common from lower to upper classes for women to control the family treasury, however history, being focused more on inter-group interactions then inside group developement, tends to only record the work and deeds of men.

Just think logically, even if there was only 1/20 chance of dyeing in childbirth before modern medicine, societies would take significantly longer to recover from plagues and famines than is recorded.

weak

Yeah. Not getting raped by every passing army is pretty cool.