Women - beasts of burden

[angryharry]

Women - beasts of burden.

Why did the men of the past not collude together and both breed and 'domesticate' women in much the same way that they did with cows and horses?

Why is it that women were not penned up in stables and treated like beasts of burden?

It would not be that hard to do, surely?

So, what stopped men from doing this?

This might sound like a silly question, but, on the contrary, no feminist can answer this question without fundamentally contradicting the ESSENTIAL basis of feminism; viz, that men have always oppressed women.

Try to answer the question yourself and see where it leads you.

Better still, ask a feminist - and watch her squirm.

[MAUS]

I have said this before elsewhere, Angry Harry, you're my hero.

Insight is not a matter of what you know, it is a matter of asking the right questions.

[gwallan]

Not wrong AH.
I've consistantly put it to feminists I encounter that men could easily have done anything they wanted to women as a class at any time in history. I tend to get stunned silence and am ignored from that point on. Maybe my mistake at times has been to draw analogies with the "comfort stations" set up by the Japanese army in WWII. Less hyperbole required I guess.

[Galt]

Good insight, Angry Harry.  I suspect, though, that feminists will always find oppression and victimhood in everything and anything. Even asking them questions or talking to them is oppressing them.

[Mr. X]

Or maybe ask the question:

If women were oppressed and are half the human population why did they stay oppressed for 5000 years? Why did they not just revolt? Are men so clever that they could keep women oppressed for so long? Where were the female armies? The female countries? Why not kill every male child as it comes out and claim its a crib death? Women have control of reproduction so simply kill male children till women greatly out number men.

History has shown groups with 10 to 100 to 1 odds against them fighting and winning freedom. Why not women who have always been 50% of the population?

[Galt]

Another issue with "oppression" is that none of us were around in the 1800s or earlier. I don't know what it was REALLY like, I just know that feminists will take every seemingly negative aspect for women and every seemingly positive aspect for men (ignoring all the rest ...) and turn it into an oppression story.  I was hypnotized by that in high school and college, but now at the tender age of 40-something, I'm no longer buying it.

I even remember talking to my grandparents about their early lives before they died - the early to mid-1900s, by their description, were not exactly as I thought based on what was taught in school, or even what I read on my own.

Feminists really did a trick with their lies and utter victimhood stance for a while. Eventually reality is going to catch up to them.

[Galt]

And, by the way, the formula is pretty simple.

Men respond to women crying, women being victimized and women being treated unfairly. Chivalry is rooted deeply in men, it just is.

Feminists use this in a very cold and calculating way. Everything is for "the child" (... and the mother), women were and are oppressed, men are evil and nasty to women, men exploit women.

And men respond.  Male legislators, male university presidents and male principals in schools (what remains of men in that occupation - they seem to mostly be women), male judges, male police officers and men in any other official position to help women are going to do just that - help women. Even a slight increase in the comfort of a woman is good, even if it leads to a drastic smack in the life of a man or men.

Plus, these chivalrous guys might have a slightly better chance of getting a piece of butt from the damsels in distress that they are constantly saving.

It all works out I guess.

[angryharry]

Thank you Maus - I'm glowing with pride.

As for the rest of you, keep thinking; because that question is dynamite - for those who know how to ignite the fuse.

Galt; I have read some history books recently and what is *obvious* is that men have been treated worse than women ********THROUGHOUT********** history.

[Galt]

Galt; I have read some history books recently and what is *obvious* is that men have been treated worse than women ********THROUGHOUT********** history.

That's pretty much getting to be my opinion.

You have to hand it to feminists - they can't build bridges, or produce food, or invent computers or do anything else useful, but they are VERY good at distorting reality so that a lot of people really believe their version of it for a while.

I know that I just passively accepted that "women were oppressed" in my early life - mostly because I had other things to get done - but when you really look into it, it starts collapsing.

If most of the legislators in the 1800s had been women, for example, feminists would be saying that women had to take on the whole burden of governance while men just sat on their butts.  You can never win with feminists.

[Galt]

What is funny is that one of the biggest groups on a kick about "oppression" consists of middle-class or upper middle-class college girls taking their courses in women's studies.

These are girls who have daddy writing a big check for them every semester - including spending money.  In the few minutes they have to actually talk to dad - maybe at Thanksgiving or Christmas - dad probably just looks into his food or at the ground, clenching his hand around his fork, listening to her utter crap - but not saying anything. He doesn't dare, not with "mom" glaring at him.

Otherwise, she does what she wants when she wants. The checks keep coming. The entire university is tilted towards her, provides her with women's resource centers and all the rest (and it is starting to show in college enrollment numbers). She has never known anything but utter privilege - and she's on a big kick about how "her group" is oppressed.

Utterly unreal.

[Galt]

Ummm ... but aside from that, feminists are OK, I guess.

[gwallan]

Another issue with "oppression" is that none of us were around in the 1800s or earlier. I don't know what it was REALLY like, I just know that feminists will take every seemingly negative aspect for women and every seemingly positive aspect for men (ignoring all the rest ...) and turn it into an oppression story.  I was hypnotized by that in high school and college, but now at the tender age of 40-something, I'm no longer buying it.

The entire theory of "the patriarchy" and "oppression of women" was created by taking a twentieth century western middle class view and overlaying it on the cultures/societies of the past. It's pure revisionism at best and downright malicious deceit at worst. Further it relies on misnaming heirarchy as "patriarchy". I've never understood why people are so horrified that the creators of a civilisation should also end up being it's leaders.

[Andyong]

True and striaght answer to that would be because majority of the men are protective of women and would not allow the dignity of women especially the ones close to them violated in any ways.

The sad truth is that lot's of women don't look at it that way, The idea that we as a group are capable doing brutal things to them and we aren't doing so because it's in our nature not to. Such questions would only cause most women to go into a denial mode.

Women - beasts of burden.

Why did the men of the past not collude together and both breed and 'domesticate' women in much the same way that they did with cows and horses?

Why is it that women were not penned up in stables and treated like beasts of burden?

It would not be that hard to do, surely?

So, what stopped men from doing this?

This might sound like a silly question, but, on the contrary, no feminist can answer this question without fundamentally contradicting the ESSENTIAL basis of feminism; viz, that men have always oppressed women.

Try to answer the question yourself and see where it leads you.

Better still, ask a feminist - and watch her squirm.

[whome112]

I'm a bit of a history buff. There are some good bits to history and a few easy enough ways to learn some history.

For instance, the Patrick O'Brian "Aubrey/Maturin" novels are considered among the best historical fiction ever written. They run roughly speaking through the Napoleonic wars, say 1795 to 1820. If O'Brian says "it was this way" the odds approach unity that it was indeed "this" way. So? Didja know the Royal Navy had female ratings? Not many, true, but there were some and unlike the male ratings they could not be flogged.

Henry V and Agincourt ... 1400's. Did you know that the chief blacksmith at the Tower was a woman? True enough.

On and on it goes.

How about the meaning of the words "husband" and "wife"

We all should know that husband means "farmer"
Do you also know that wife means "seller" This from the fact that the woman took the family's produce to market and sold it, bought what the family needed and came back to husband and kids.

On and on history goes. All of it interesting and most of it not what feminists want history to be.

whome

[Cordell Walker]

What is funny is that one of the biggest groups on a kick about "oppression" consists of middle-class or upper middle-class college girls taking their courses in women's studies.

These are girls who have daddy writing a big check for them every semester - including spending money.  In the few minutes they have to actually talk to dad - maybe at Thanksgiving or Christmas - dad probably just looks into his food or at the ground, clenching his hand around his fork, listening to her utter crap - but not saying anything. He doesn't dare, not with "mom" glaring at him.

Otherwise, she does what she wants when she wants. The checks keep coming. The entire university is tilted towards her, provides her with women's resource centers and all the rest (and it is starting to show in college enrollment numbers). She has never known anything but utter privilege - and she's on a big kick about how "her group" is oppressed.

Utterly unreal.

you hit the home run on this one, all the way! that is exactly right.  a english friend of mine told me "sociology majors tend to have more opinions than experience" and i noticed this also, when my feminist friend started her job as a social worker, she has toned down her rhetoric(proabably cuz she has seen some pretty disgusting things done by 'opressed women')
I think a large portion of the problem is the wold of acedemia is the only place where rhtoric supersedes reality.  In the real world, you have to adapt your ideas to reality but in "womens studies" acadeamia, you can adapt reality to your ideas