Women - beasts of burden

[realman]

"The entire university is tilted towards her"

More like the entire world.

I have a feeling this "female oppression" crap would come to a quick end (some non-western cultures notwithstanding, I suppose) if every year a special day was set aside as "no special privileges for women day".

You wanna see feminism go from 60 to zero in one day???

Yes, I mean, for one day, the men, the insitutions, the courts, the goverment, treat women just the same as men. Seriously. Suddenly everyone would go "holy shit, I never noticed..."

[woof]

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.

Interesting question Harry.

Oppress \Op*press"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Oppressed}; p. pr. &
  vb. n. {Oppressing}.] [F. oppresser, LL. oppressare, fr. L.
  oppressus, p. p. of opprimere; ob (see {Ob-}) + premere to
  press. See {Press}.]
  1. To impose excessive burdens upon; to overload; hence, to
     treat with unjust rigor or with cruelty. --Wyclif.
     [1913 Webster]

98% of war time deaths......male
94% of work related deaths......male
95% of people in prision......male
male suicide is 10 times greater than female

[bluegrass]

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.

Well, first off I'd have to say that the reason men didn't domesticate and breed women into docility is the simple fact that one can't so simply separate men from women.

That is, to breed women for docility necessarily will breed men for docility since every man got half his genes from his mother.

That's the materialist, objective answer.

The spiritual, emotional answer is that there is hardly a Dad who would see his daughter treated with anything less than boundless love.

And if he's to marry her off eventually, that man had better not treat her as a beast of burden either, otherwise he may be surprised in the night with a great big stick!

Bottom line:  human history is a history of families and a history of real love.  In order to treat women like you suggest, each man would have to see his daughter in the abstract -- an impossibility where the real and boundless love of a father for his children is so inextricable.

[shard43]

When women don't do the work, like in the western world, feminists claim that its because they are oppressed.

When women do the work, like in Africa, feminists claim that its because they are oppressed.

Which is it, smelly fems?

[angryharry]

Hello Bluegrass

Well, first off I'd have to say that the reason men didn't domesticate and breed women into docility is the simple fact that one can't so simply separate men from women.

Why should men have needed to keep them docile by genetic means?

Their **collective** muscle power alone could have achieved this.