4 ms·

Well, this I think is hard to argue against. Historically, women had much fewer options in life. Basically, marry someone they don't pick, give them babies and

Well, this I think is hard to argue against. Historically, women had much fewer options in life. Basically, marry someone they don't pick, give them babies and look after the house. Poorer women had to work super hard, wealthier women less so, but were subordinate to the husbands whims, physically if nothing else. Where voting was a thing, they couldn't vote. They were often not in control of their finances. They were cut off from education, office, "manly" hobbies. Then a very real glass ceiling - certainly a thing in 20th century. This is focusing on the negatives of course but it would be hard to argue they had equal rights.

listless 3y ago
Historically yes, but that was quite a while ago - none of that has been the case for quite a while. The real push against men started maybe ~10 years ago? Or at least that’s when I noticed women I worked with being openly hostile to “men” online. Said to say, they have had equal rights for a while now, but the rhetoric keeps amping up anyway.
boringuser2 3y ago
You are suborning your current values to an historical assessment. Did medieval peasants have "freedom"? Did they care? Men had short, brutal lives historically. Women were highly valuable. I think part of the problem of modernity is that men have to adjust to not having short, brutal lives. Lots get left behind. Humans still have the cognitive machinery to assign more value to women than men. Fundamental differences in reproductive output (i.e. men are "disposable" in a reproductive sense) make this immutable, even outside of millions of years of psychological evolution.
jlawson 3y ago
The original comment said, "hostile" to women. What you're describing isn't being 'hostile', otherwise one would have to say society is 'hostile' to children or old people. The goal posts have moved to 'equal rights'. But of course by that measure nobody had equal rights. A man couldn't do things that were just for women, and vice versa. The argument you need to make is that women had it worse overall than men at the time. (Not worse than women now, or worse than men now.) This is not obvious, given the brutal ways men lived and died in those eras. Being disallowed from e.g. fighting in a war doesn't sound so bad when fighting in a war means getting conscripted to be stabbed to death on a muddy field. Being disallowed from industry jobs doesn't sound so bad when industry jobs means choking to death on coal dust to earn enough food to eat for yourself and family. History was brutal for everyone.
- benlivengood 3y ago
  I think there's ample reason for 'not equal rights' to be treated as hostility. The biggest reason is direct or implied hostile opposition to obtaining equality. There was significant rejection by men for centuries of suffrage and other equal rights for women; this is hostility toward women's historical desires and wishes to be treated as equals. Where it might be argued that individual men were only following cultural, religious, or other beliefs in denying equality to women then those cultures, religions, and other forces were hostile to women and their interests.
  - boringuser2 3y ago
    This is a, for lack of better terminology, a disgustingly bourgeoise view. You must step outside yourself if you want to CURIOUSLY interrogate history.

listless 3y ago

Historically yes, but that was quite a while ago - none of that has been the case for quite a while. The real push against men started maybe ~10 years ago? Or at least that’s when I noticed women I worked with being openly hostile to “men” online. Said to say, they have had equal rights for a while now, but the rhetoric keeps amping up anyway.

boringuser2 3y ago

You are suborning your current values to an historical assessment. Did medieval peasants have "freedom"? Did they care? Men had short, brutal lives historically. Women were highly valuable. I think part of the problem of modernity is that men have to adjust to not having short, brutal lives. Lots get left behind. Humans still have the cognitive machinery to assign more value to women than men. Fundamental differences in reproductive output (i.e. men are "disposable" in a reproductive sense) make this immutable, even outside of millions of years of psychological evolution.

jlawson 3y ago

The original comment said, "hostile" to women. What you're describing isn't being 'hostile', otherwise one would have to say society is 'hostile' to children or old people. The goal posts have moved to 'equal rights'. But of course by that measure nobody had equal rights. A man couldn't do things that were just for women, and vice versa. The argument you need to make is that women had it worse overall than men at the time. (Not worse than women now, or worse than men now.) This is not obvious, given the brutal ways men lived and died in those eras. Being disallowed from e.g. fighting in a war doesn't sound so bad when fighting in a war means getting conscripted to be stabbed to death on a muddy field. Being disallowed from industry jobs doesn't sound so bad when industry jobs means choking to death on coal dust to earn enough food to eat for yourself and family. History was brutal for everyone.

benlivengood 3y ago
I think there's ample reason for 'not equal rights' to be treated as hostility. The biggest reason is direct or implied hostile opposition to obtaining equality. There was significant rejection by men for centuries of suffrage and other equal rights for women; this is hostility toward women's historical desires and wishes to be treated as equals. Where it might be argued that individual men were only following cultural, religious, or other beliefs in denying equality to women then those cultures, religions, and other forces were hostile to women and their interests.
- boringuser2 3y ago
  This is a, for lack of better terminology, a disgustingly bourgeoise view. You must step outside yourself if you want to CURIOUSLY interrogate history.