Well, someone is lying. Either this artice or feminists who claim that back in day women were treated as chattel.
Calling out propaganda aside - with all this feminism and men stayed in same place while women advanced their right far above what men have - men are still workhorses to provide, serv and sacrifice.
"War led to the institution of slavery, especially for the women of the defeated side (defeated males were usually slaughtered) and stamped the entire female gender with the stigma attached to concubines and domestic servants. Men did better, or at least a few of them, with the most outstanding commanders rising to the status of kings and eventually emperors."
Yes, other than being parenthetically slaughtered, men did great. I enjoyed imagining Bill Burr tackling this bit.
Being coerced into fighting wars that have nothing to do with you is clearly oppressive. Maintaining a society which accepts this, is oppressive. Violence for entertainment is male-focused, and oppressive.
Men are very, very oppressed. A few who have escaped into financial independence does not make a trend.
Ah, this old argument. Yes, and modern feminism would not disagree with you. What this argument does is try to shift the responsibility away from the oppressor (in this case, patriarchy), akin to the slave owner saying to the slave that he's also had a hard life.
>For most of history, women were basically the property of their fathers, then traded for dowry to become the property of their husbands. They couldn't own property, they couldn't vote, they could be stoned to death for disobeying their husbands.
For most of history, both men and women in any society couldn't do any of the things you just described. The majority of people in any society, of both genders, have belonged to the lower classes. This is still true today, but you have far more rights as a lower class person today than you would have 200 years ago. You're viewing history solely from the perspective of the upper classes (which includes the middle class).
What suffering? Did they fight in the front-line or plough fields old day long? The handful of males at the top didn't make ALL men not suffer, neither did make ALL women suffer. Royalty women had better lives than the 99% of men throughout history. That's revisionist history at it's finest and the same BS reasoning the writer of this blogpost has.
This is interesting. I feel like from a man’s standpoint the only thing we really fear , for ourselves, is either losing our lives or own property. At worse we’ll either be tortured or enslaved or whatever. For women however there are much worse horrors awaiting if the invaders don’t follow a strict moral code. If I were a woman I wouldn’t accept pacifism in any capacity as I would be the one more likely strip of bodily autonomy in a worse case scenario.
> All of these things have been present in the most war-torn and unstable societies (ex: much of the Middle East, some of the areas around present-day China and Russia).
No, they have been condemned for females and tolerated for the more powerful.
>Men have been getting the good end of sexual discrimination for centuries. Owning property. Voting. Higher education. Being allowed to practice a profession. Being favored by marriage laws. Being favored by social biases.
Yes, so let's reverse it, and get a female-biased revenge ...on people that weren't even alive back at those times.
> I mean, yes there always were and always will be some abusive men, but men _as a group_ have been more associated with protecting and caring for women than being hostile to them.
As much a slaveowner has been "protecting and caring" for his slaves.
I don't think this negates the fact that most recorded events are about men which I think if you're leaving something out of history when you could have included it that's pretty much ignoring
Honestly this comment was a very long winded way of saying "women aren't as oppressed as some men"
Also what about women today? They make 78 cents on the dollar compared to men! How is that not modern slavery that is enforced on women by the patriarchy?
US slavery was different than most historical and present day forms of forced labor. Slavery was called the “peculiar institution” because it was unique in the condition of slavery being inherited.
As for feminism, the western world spent trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives trying to bring gender equality to Afghanistan. Truly the western world would be better off using soft power to create a more equal world instead of bombing people in to a culture of tolerance.
Given how many countries and cultures allow women to be treated as property and owned with little recourse it's hard to say this is the last stronghold of slavery. We just prefer not to raise this too often, as it's often the result of religious rules.
>Regardless if you're life is in danger that's the equivalent of slavery and their not your family anymore their your masters.
Yes, women were historic (in many places) and currently (in some places) property of men. Why don't you get this?
You even see history of it in the current western marriage ceremony. A father "gives away" her daughter at the alter. This horrible "tradition" represents the exchange of property from father to husband.
Anyways, marriage for love is a recent invention. Previously in time marriage was more of a business transaction.
reply