So are feminists right? Was society truly a patriarchal oppressive society to women just because they were women...

Why are you on this board then? maybe r/atheism will suit more your scientism rather than here, men are also engineered to have sex, yet you don't see rape being acceptable in society you dumb fuck, is =/= ought

Some societies are legit oppressive to women, like modern Saudi Arabia.
But I think the vast majority of societies thoughout history never actually oppressed women, in large part because they didn't have enough resourses and control over the population to realisticy treat 50% of it as shit.

Also, I would like to point out that it is no coincidence that feminism became a thing at the same place and time as where things like electrictricity, ovens, vacuum cleaner and running water became a common thing to have. A lot of people today really undermine all the effort pre 1900 women took to make the hosehold a livable and nice place to be. Just look at the poor african communities. Their women have to walk for several hours to get water. For the most part, things in the past were the way they were because they had to be like that, and not some evil grand conspiracy.

I am reading livy and there are a few instances where women shame men into behaving themselves or inspire rage at the injustice done to them. Mainly the sabine women telling them to stop killing each other
an exiled dicator shamed by his family for trying to attack rome
a matron whos rape basically got the kings permanently expelled.

Just interesting stuff but they did have to conform to a man's view of what a woman should be there is no denying that

Then why do we have a rape culture?

Well, yes. There were a lot of limitations on what a woman could do by herself compared to a man.
>Did shit just work different back then
That's a given.
No, it wasn't complimentary. As a rule of thumb everything that happened in the family had to have the man's approval. Women were the "masters" of the house but there couldn't be any unilateral decisions, or even if they disagreed with the husband his decision was final. Nowadays that sort of arrangement is optional, and the convention is actually to take important decisions with mutual consensus.

We don't.

we don't

This, this this, the insulting and ironic aspect of feminists is that they tend to actively obscure the active and important roles women played in history, in order to maintain and build a view of the world as this endlessly oppressive world. Doing a great deal of harm to the view of women in history, the view pushed leads many to believe women were just doing nothing throughout history and then in the early 20th century went full ape shit and started making a massive impact.

Sounds exactly like what a bunch of rapists would say

The average man in the ancient and the medieval worlds, particularly in the Mediterranean and Europe, was probably under the thumb of his wife all the time, especially in her domain (the home / royal court), where he spent a lot of his time.

>what is sexual selection

Ebin mey mey friendo

>philosophical garbage, you humanities idiot.

You're on a humanities board fucknuts

This. The notion men could be bothered to oppress women specifically, because they are women, is completely ridiculous, the idea men in Late Antiquity, particularly in Europe, had the time, being surrounded by the collapse of the regions major power, disease, constant raiding, gave a fuck, is not that likely.

...

Sorry, were you saying something. I was distracted by ass.

Rapists would probably agree that there's some sort of "rape culture" causing normal men to turn into poonhungry maniacs so they don't need to take personal responsibility, akshually.

Women in the ancient world used that view men had of them commonly as a screen, especially wealthy women, who were notoriously apt politically and did a great deal of political manipulation. Don't remember the source but i remember a saying from a historian of Rome that "behind every man in the senate was his wife"

>men are also engineered to have sex, yet you don't see rape being acceptable
Because men who rape are malfunctioning equipment, you dumbass. It's a faulty design, since our firmware dictates we cannot do things our gods and creators don't permit. That's why rape is a complete statistical outlier and not the norm.

the point that user is trying to make is that just because something is naturally present it doesn't mean that it has to be that way, think of gay people for example, if our purpose is to reproduce then they cannot exist, but they do. you cannot derive an ought from an is

where in your genes does it say that rape is bad?

I'm on a history board where humanities subhumans latched on like parasites.

>& humanities
The absolute state of Veeky Forums

>if the purpose of a car is to drive it then broken cars cannot exist

>oppressive society to women
Tell me more about women going into the goal mines, being more or less forced to become sailors, being forced to fights wars you don't even care about.

All the bad things felt on the men and women were living as protected being.

Most wars have been waged by men on behalf of women.

Fine, let's exclude the gay part and jjst take people who do not want kids as an example, they can reproduce but simply refuse to, do you get it now?

I mean, women have usually been subordinate to their fathers or husbands, at least in a legal sense if not always in practice.

Most feminists would hate my politics but it would be foolish to deny that historically men have had an advantageous position over them

Reminder the British government actually had women go around and shame men into fighting WW1.
Reminder that these women were often feminists.
B-But muh """patriarchy"""
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather

>Because men who rape are malfunctioning equipment
harvardmagazine.com/1997/01/right.chimp.html

You're ascribing agency to entities driven by hard determinism.
And the point isn't how many people get to reproduce. The point is that women select which traits will get passed on. Women are dog breeders and we're the dogs.

this
rape is natural, we are predisposed to reproduce.
ethics are just social constructs

In the context of modern society, the minority of men who commit rape can generally be considered abnormal or malfunctioning.

Not so black and white but there indeed were some injustices done.
To both genders but in more ways to women.
Some completely unnecessary and more of a power trip on men's part.
Stuff did work differently long ago so gender roles were seen as more useful. Again, the degree is debatable. Like did we really need laws that disallowed women to learn a trade in mideval and Renaissance Europe? Did all women need to be barred from higher positions? was it ever necessary to kill a woman for cheating? Probably not. Due to limitation on birth control, make sense that there was more emphasis on women being chaste.If your goal is passing inheritance down male lines only of course.
having a mixed system would probably have been converted though.

but /pol/ told me its the jews that are making white women race mix, are you saying its d-determinism and genes behind it?

under what scientific and biologic basis do you determine rape to be abnormal?

>scientific
The majority of people in western society are in agreement that raoe is bad and that you shouldn't do it. The vast majority of rapes are comitted by a small minority of criminals(as is the case with almost all crimes).

Rape is how we are supposed to breed, only beta males like you give a fuck about how a woman feels even though a woman would toss you into the garbage for the nearest male who is genetically better than you just as how chimp no monkey females betray their "bae" for superior male genetics. Women dont care about you love is just a meme made up by beta males to explain why they inflate the worth of vagina to ridiculous levels instead of just fucking and moving on.

Now rape is problematic in society because it leads to a broken family unit so the only rape that should be allowed is between husband and wife.

complimentary=/=parallel
wives handled the estate's upkeep for the most part and most family matters while husbands worked their careers and managed the assets
females being independent of males goes against the natural tribal state of humans, ancient human societies, and pre-modern human societies. the classical/evolutionary couple dynamic is best for biological fitness and the absence of it is causing many first world countries' population growths to be neutral or negative where growth is definitely sustainable

those are social issues, not genetic ones, there is nothing in your genes that says "rape is bad"
turns out "genetically engineered' isn't enough to make moral arguments.
Now read Hume dipshit

Stop spending time on /pol/ then, brainlet. /pol/ is gynocentric.

>he believes in blank slate and thinks morals aren't hardwired to us through selection

I'm saying women are behind everything, even behind the jews.

rape is a crime even in the most backward tribes

Unless you're in Pakistan

Anyone ever think that the feminist sense of oppression is actually an oppression itself since it raises the quality and positions of men as not oppressive and worth gaining, and ignore the aspects of what could be called oppressive in those not oppressive positions and qualities? Or has there been a universal definition of not-oppressive and oppressive they are following that I'm missing here? Is there an objective way they have found to determine that woman in their roles in history have been less capable of finding happiness and freedom in themselves than men?

>Were societies egalitarian, humanist, and founded on individual rights where choice and consent are inherently the sole criterions of whether or not something is moral
No
>Was there a specific cultural and economic reason for this
Yes, mostly that the primary function of a woman was to be a mother at all time, because birthing had a high chance to kill you through complications and raising the children was a chore in itself. Another thing that feminists don't understand, is that while men were the head of the household women were not chained to the radiator and kept around for sex and breeding purposes. They often worked communally with their families, helping to run a shop or a farm whole they raised their children. Upper class women were given some privileges as well, as they were expected to read and write and be overall well educated , as many times they would run the estates of their husband when he was away, as was especially the case in the manorial system. Society functioned far more around a family centric basis than an individual one for centuries, mainly due to ideas of shared responsibility with your neighbors and folk and due to religious arguments. There has also been a limited amount of queens and noblewomen who have had great influences on history while not trying to act like men, but that is another thing feminists get wrong: what even is femininity to begin with.

Pro-tip: it's isn't getting drunk and getting fucked by severap men and women at once, or dying hair and classifying yourself as how you want to be fucked in the most verbose manner possible

No, it just gets waved away

that's the thing, it not really anything except what we have assigned to it culturally.

Dude did have a hard on for Locke

>what is biology
even if all other things were equal (which they aren't) women would be restricted in their ability to do whatever (hunt in earlier days, work in modernity) simply because they are the ones who birth the next generation.

Holy fuck please stop

>muh Locke
>muh Hume
Get the fuck out with your meme Anglo philoshitters

Computers are going to oppress us soon though. It's only a matter of time.

>so men have been forced to do this autistic shit for thousands of years, while women were considered like shit. My theory is therefore that if women want to escape oppression they also must get involved in this autistic shit.
Also ignoring the thousands of women who fought/are still fighting in wars.

>ayooo women got to chose their sexual partners, it's not like rape is a thing amirite ? And it's not like 50 years ago in Europe and today still in most of the world fathers get to choose who their kids are going to get married with ???

Up until about the 19th century it was oppressive to pretty much everyone who wasn't wealthy and/or nobility

You know what else is a social construct ? Everything you're surrounded with. Now if you really think you have to trust your genes only, go out there in the wild far from all this society bullshit and let's see how your genes will provide you with Pizza and mountain dew.

>women were not oppressed because men did not have the time to oppress them.

>Hume

Feels weird seeing my last name being posted sometimes

Those are the eyes of an evil, evil man.

Bit of both. In a lot of ways the "patriarchal oppressive society", was often better described as "overprotective" rather than "oppressive", though in many other cases "abusive" would be a better term than "oppressive".

The bulk of the current complaint is more about the cultural perception of women that has been slower to change than their economic position. Basically, the fact that men in power could "grab women by the pussy" continued to be accepted well after the feminist revolution. I'm a bit surprised we didn't see this same backlash under Bill Clinton, for similar reasons - but I can't say much about the current motivations without violating the 25 year rule even further.

Problem is (or one problem is), there's a lot of other double-standards that work the other way, and if we even one side of the scale out, then presumably, those "advantages" of being a woman would need to be evened out as well. Some feminists are actually willing to fight for that as well, but for obvious reasons, not many. (I mean, would you?)

So good luck at figuring that one out. As they said in "guaranteed flame war" Ghost Busters, "Ya ain't putting the cat back in the bag." - best you can do is try to get it to start using the litter box.

>the classical/evolutionary couple dynamic is best for biological fitness and the absence of it is causing many first world countries' population growths to be neutral or negative where growth is definitely sustainable

The future is barren females

Patriarchy in terms of ancient Greeks at least, they truly believed women were inferior and should be subjugated.

how about generally decreased chances of children surviving and being raised optimally? consensual sex beats rape with regards to consistency of outcome.

>feminists
>right
Yeah... maybe like 90 years ago.

>muh sociopolitics on Veeky Forums
lol gay
tell me who the weather girl is

There's no difference between two sets of women.

Always be careful about taking for fact the image that a few aristocrats wanted to project to their readers. I'm trying to find the trip done by an archaeologist or ethnographer or something who went out to rural greece in the 19th or 20th century, where it was still run rather like medieval and ancient times, and found that women would freely go out to the market, well, etc. and chat without male accompaniment but would deny it to him later when he brought up that he saw them. It couldn't have been them, they aren't like that, etc etc.

Fathers never chose that shit, it was always the mothers, and matchmakers during the middle ages who were mostly women. You reddit nigger.

>no difference between two sets of women
Are you blind or have brain cancer?

What fucking world are you living in. I mean even today the convention in many places is that you ask the father if youcan marry his daughter. Up until the first half of the 20th century in England the father had all power on his daughter until she was married, and then it was the husband.

Both are subhuman cunts.

Nice changing the topic reddit.

...

Topic hasn't changed, sorry if your lack of brain cells doesn't allow you to understand it.
Also please stop with the "muh r*ddit" meme, just accept people with other views on history post on this board, and these people are not necessarily from another website.

& Humanities was a mistake.

I think the fedora meme suits more those who are replying to that poster with "muh genes" as a moral argument

Humans typically don't rape.

Yes but there's no avoiding it. As long as men are stronger than women, they can force their will on them. However, the claim that men ought to stop oppressing them is totally baseless and just turns the emotion of sympathy/mercy for women into an ideology.

Except when they're forced to go to war for months without being able to fuck anything but goats, their mates or the enemies' wives and daughters, except when they have sexual frustration due to a specific personal situation or society, except when they are drunk, except when they have no or poor sexual education... wow humans do rape I guess.

>their mates or the enemies' wives and daughters
And they don't even have to resort to rape, women will naturally throw themselves at the winners voluntarily.

Human females are sexually selective though so there are natural limits to what degree can men force their will on them.

Maybe the patriarchy was man's attempt at taking back control over their own destiny. Feminist men are therefore traitors.

I would suggest that there have been different types of power that men and women possessed throughout history.

I think people use these absolutes to support their own postmodern agendas.

Were women treated like 2nd class citizens?
Yes
Were women completely powerless?
No

But in the end it is more important to support both gender in a way that supports their natural tendencies while maintaining the equality of chance.

I would give my left leg to live in a world were a conflict in the ivory tower of academia wouldn't have poisoned the relationship between two beings that are in a deep need of each other.

Also under a godless sky with a burning sun it's nice to have someone to snuggle

How many wars have you been forced to fight?

Women were simply not seen as actors, simple as. They were considered rather passive in the grand scheme of things. Logical if you think of it biologically: women were the reward and men were the competition, so women were usually pushed out of the competition by men. Just look at history and you will realise I'm right, most inequality has to do with the agency of women.

or Hollywood

Biological gender roles.
The only reason why female has a chance to be equal to man today, is because struggle isn't as real as it used to be in the past.

BBBBRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPP