Women were NEVER oppressed

[Deleted member 6512]

Can I use this when I get into arguments with feminists in Instagram because I get into many arguments with them?

Why wasting time arguing? They will just mass attack you and then block you

 

[Deleted member 6723]

Why wasting time arguing? They will just mass attack you and then block you

kinda satisfying tbh. I also have enough time to do everything else while in an argument with them.

 

[LastGerman]

Women could and did own property. Property deeds and marriage contracts from that time period prove this. In fact women owned property independent from their husbands more often than the reverse (what was hers was hers but what was his was usually also hers).

The world has always been pro-female and anti-men.

 

[Andros]

france gives low rent appartment to women, you're a guy and broke? You live in the streets boyo

 

[Mongrelcel]

france gives low rent appartment to women, you're a guy and broke? You live in the streets boyo

Fucking really? Elaborate?

 

[Alt Number 3]

What can I say, am glad that more and more ppl are starting to realise what I knew many years ago. Imagine if all males have this knowledge

 

[Deleted member 6723]

.

So can I use this thread against feminists?

 

[Mongrelcel]

What can I say, am glad that more and more ppl are starting to realise what I knew many years ago. Imagine if all males have this knowledge

Never will happen due to women-are-wonderful effect. They wont accept it.

 

[Mongrelcel]

So can I use this thread against feminists?

Debating with feminists is pointless. You are not going to convince them, and you are not going to convince anyone watching because women are always right. Any bystander is either a woman (so shes automatically a feminist) or a man, who has a biological imperative to believe and protect women.

 

[Deleted member 6723]

Debating with feminists is pointless. You are not going to convince them, and you are not going to convince anyone watching because women are always right. Any bystander is either a woman (so shes automatically a feminist) or a man, who has a biological imperative to believe and protect women.

I know its pointless. I just find it more productive than just browsing .me and fapping. So can I use it then?

 

[Mongrelcel]

So can I use it then?

Nigga why are you asking me for a permission to copy some text you found online? You need to inject testosterone ASAP

 

[Deleted member 6723]

Nigga why are you asking me for a permission to copy some text you found online? You need to inject testosterone ASAP

Dont wanna get into any trouble but I'll take that as a yes.

 

[karbo]

im gonna read all this later, lately ive been running out of arguments against retarded leftist foids

 

[Hozay]

didnt read but ik theres good content in here

 

[Lev Peshkov]

Women Alwyas had tutorial mode life

 

[improover]

didn't read but agree with everything

 

[Deleted member 3902]

Only bcoz iran or lebanon dont opress women it doesnt mean most other islamic countries dont do it also

 

[Deleted member 275]

No.
Its because no matter how subhuman the female is, she reproduces anyway. Often with a subhuman betabuxxer.
If women got selected out of the gene pool as men did, evolution would be 50% faster. We would all be chads now.

There used to be nothing wrong with betabuxing. If some foid reproduced with a deadbeat jobless chad, she and her child would rightfully starve, have no access to healthcare, malnutrition, etc. Their kid would most likely grow up ugly as fuck under such circumstances.

Now the role of betabuxing has been taken over by the state that steals betabux money through taxes and then gives it directly to women and their chad offspring. This has caused a severe imbalance in the SMP.

Women should be selecting for alphabux, but now they just select for alphas, since the state will always roll in and save the day if anything goes wrong. It's stupid asf.

 

[Ritalincel]

 

[Ritalincel]

 

[fras]

Based, but I still think feminism is based because it's better to atleast have a chad dad and subhuman mum than both subhuman mum & dad. It atleast increases the chances that offspring will be gl, but really the best thing for our species would probably just be to find a new planet, learn to travel space. Let ONLY the gl people go to the new planet and leave the rest subhuman genetic trash to rot on gay earth

You'd need extremely great minds like Zucc though to succeed in such a space travel mission, so a few subhumans would have to come along.

 

[TsarTsar444]

what an absolutely shit thread, women have always been oppressd by mysoginist scum like yourself who only thinks for himself, women deserve to have great power cause they are much more precious. You are such a baddie but remove the bad ❤
@SubhumanCurrycel

 

[fras]

what an absolutely shit thread, women have always been oppressd by mysoginist scum like yourself who only thinks for himself, women deserve to have great power cause they are much more precious. You are such a baddie but remove the bad ❤
@SubhumanCurrycel

Yes, women are never at fault. The reason so many women cheat today is men's fault. The reason women reject most men is because they have the right to, those men should have been born with better genetics, it's their fault. It's men's fault for being born outside of Europe and paying the ethnic tax, why weren't they just born in Europe? It's all men's fault.

 

[TsarTsar444]

Yes, women are never at fault. The reason so many women cheat today is men's fault. The reason women reject most men is because they have the right to, those men should have been born with better genetics, it's their fault. It's men's fault for being born outside of Europe and paying the ethnic tax, why weren't they just born in Europe? It's all men's fault.

no ❤

 

[SpiritAnimal]

They call taking care of the kids oppresion while men were getting drafted dying on the battlefield.

 

[StressShady]

There is a lot of misinformation about the supposed "historical oppression" of women. While I don't deny that there were some unequal gender norms and practices (which usually went both ways), a lot of the claims around this topic are simply not true.
Most of these exaggerated claims can be traced back to a single source authored by a man named Sir William Blackstone who lived in England during the 1700s. He wrote about the system of coverture in Europe, which was a form of marriage practiced at the time.
Pretty much everything he wrote on this topic has since been debunked, and even he admitted that what he wrote wasn't true at the time he wrote it (which was in what he saw as "enlightened times" compared to a previous period in history that he thought he was writing about). The mythology inspired by his writings has nevertheless taken on a life of it's own.
Examples include the idea that women were treated like property, didn't have rights, and could be legally beaten by their husbands.
Many modern day academics even believe these things. They also tend to blindly cite each other in a kind of "echo chamber" without checking their sources. Which means that many otherwise credible looking sources on this topic have citation chains that either don't go anywhere, or eventually go back to the debunked claims made by Blackstone.
One academic paper formally analyzed those citation trails and was able to prove this in an objective manner:
George, M. J. (2007). The "Great Taboo" and the Role of Patriarchy in Husband and Wife Abuse. International Journal of Men's Health, 6(1).
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1855/f217b082603d0ab37ea80c4741fceb8a4a23.pdf
He was looking specifically at the claim that wife beating used to be legal. And besides providing plenty of evidence that it wasn't, he also called out these "Blackstone inspired papers" that were claiming it was true.
Another source from 1946 written by a female historian and suffragette dove into the history of some of these claims and discovered pretty much the same thing. She was upset that women's accomplishments in history were being downplayed by supposed "women's advocates" because they were hell-bent on proving that women were oppressed.
She went on to write an entire book about women's accomplishments in history in order to disprove this idea.
Here is one excerpt from her book where she tackles the fact that Blackstone was pretty much their only "source" that women were oppressed in history.

And another except:

(Emphasis added)
Beard, Mary. (1946). Woman as a Force in History. Macmillan, New York.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/beard/woman-force/index.htm
I included a list of bullet points below which are mainly about Medieval Europe, although some can be traced back to Roman times. At least one source containing evidence about divorced wives goes back to 597 CE. And it's also true that women have owned property and been allowed to divorce as far back as ancient Egypt.
A short summary about how men and women are treated in Arabic societies can be found here:

And some more information about female power structures that often get ignored by researchers can be found here:

https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/ae.1974.1.3.02a00100
Many people will swear up and down that woman had fewer rights not just in Arabic cultures, but also in Europe, and will point to the legal concept of coverture (as interpreted by Blackstone) to prove that.
Not only is this view factually wrong, but I think it does a great disservice to the real world accomplishments of women in history that are often brushed aside to peddle this agenda.
So to summarize:

• As a kind of default, property was held in the husband's name on behalf of the marital unit that also included the wife. The husband was only entitled to half of it, much like how marriage tends to work today (which many people, including contemporaries from the time, thought was unfair to men, not women).
• Husbands and wives were treated as a joint entity under the husband's name in common law for trivial matters, but in higher courts (known as courts of equity), they could also be treated as distinct persons. That means married couples could, and did, engage in contracts with each other, sue each other, and have separate estates, debts, and interests. A wife was not bound to her husband and her rights did not derive from him in any way.
• Men were not allowed to beat their wives. Spouses could, and did, prosecute each other for domestic violence in court. Court records from that time period prove this. (In the US, domestic violence laws at the federal level weren't passed untill around 1920, but domestic violence was still prosecuted under regular assault laws before that time; it was never actually legal, unlike what some people try to twist this around to mean).
• A dower was an "insurance plan" meant to secure a woman's financial independence in the event that her husband died or divorced her. The modern equivalent is alimony. It was not a "payment" that was used to purchase a wife, and the husband did not own her. The system was unfair to men, not to women, and in modern times we're still trying to get rid of alimony / palimony in the name of gender equality.
• Women could and did divorce their husbands. Court records from that time period prove this. They also tended to get better settlements than the husband did. Women as far back as 597 CE are recorded as living in estates that once belonged to their ex-husbands.
• Women could and did own property. Property deeds and marriage contracts from that time period prove this. In fact women owned property independent from their husbands more often than the reverse (what was hers was hers but what was his was usually also hers).
• Women could and did work. Accounting records from businesses at that time prove this. There's even evidence that women were paid exactly the same per unit of output as men (which is how labor was paid back then). Women did on average earn less which has been taken as evidence of a wage gap. But this was likely based on working hours and productivity differences between men and women, not discrimination.
• For most of history, education was a punishment that "taught" discipline, not facts. They were heavy on corporal punishment and forced labor. Which was meant to build character and instill discipline in children. The reason women weren't "educated" is because it was believed that they behaved themselves better and therefore didn't need to be educated. There was only a small overlap between education becoming useful for learning things, and women not being allowed to be educated.
• Inside the family unit, women were usually in charge, not men. This was especially true in pre-industrial Europe and is also true today.
• Women could and did hold power in history. Including running businesses and ruling over entire nations.
• Women received universal suffrage very shortly after men in most parts of the world. The reason it took longer for women was because a person's right to vote was tied to services and obligations that they were required to give to the state. Things like fire brigades, militia training, the draft, attending caucuses, paying taxes, etc. For men, the right to vote has never been something that was given to them for free, so the idea that women could get it for free wasn't "obvious" to people at the time (not even to other women). This nuance has been lost today because men's obligations to the state have largely gone away over time (everything except for the draft, and compulsory military training in countries that still do that).
• Women were instrumental in building and shaping the world we live in today. Unlike race or class, men and women have always lived together, shared similar spaces, and occupied the same positions in society.

Women received universal suffrage very shortly after men in most parts of the world. The reason it took longer for women was because a person's right to vote was tied to services and obligations that they were required to give to the state. Things like fire brigades, militia training, the draft, attending caucuses, paying taxes, etc. For men, the right to vote has never been something that was given to them for free, so the idea that women could get it for free wasn't "obvious" to people at the time (not even to other women). This nuance has been lost today because men's obligations to the state have largely gone away over time (everything except for the draft, and compulsory military training in countries that still do that). "

While, in my mind, the historical right to vote was tied at the hip to military service it has come to my attention recently that many people do not believe it work(s)(ed) that way. The idea is that the right to vote is not dependent on the draft.

After doing a bit of research, I will admit that I cannot find any US state or local law which ever made voter registration directly dependent on military service or draft registration. On top of that, the selective service draft did not even exist for much of the countries history.

However, conscription in other forms did exist. The state militia system has existed since 1792. The militia at that time was defined as ALL white, male citizens. Shortly before the emancipation proclamation, this was expanded to include black male citizens. And the militia act stated that "any number" of this group could be called into battle. It was was a more vague version of the draft, which did not specify HOW recruits would be selected. States were simply expected to produce a certain number of "volunteers" by any means necessary. Which, if you think about it, means it wasn't really voluntary.


Thus, every male who has ever met the basic eligibility requirements to vote in a US presidential election has also met the basic eligibility requirement to be pressed into military service through either the militia system or the draft.

Even then some women didn't think it was fair that they could vote on issues that men would be responsible for upholding (something known as a moral hazard -- making decisions for things that other people bear the costs of).

The source from The Atlantic (here) which was written in the early 1900s by a female anti-suffragette mentions the issue of prohibition. Which was often supported or opposed down gender lines. Women could vote to criminalize alcohol consumption for men which would then be enforced by other men.
Which is what ended up happening once women were given the right to vote. And was also one of the main reasons people supported or opposed women's suffrage in the US.

To this day, a majority of voters are women, and there's evidence that women have, in aggregate, used their disproportionate political power to pass laws that benefit them at the expense of men (I'm sure not maliciously, this is just what happens given enough time with that kind of political imbalance).

Spoiler: Some sources

Women receive more government benefits than men…
Lake, Rebecca (2016, May 23). 23 Shocking Statistics Of Welfare in America. Retrieved October 21, 2019, from https://www.creditdonkey.com/welfare-statistics.html
United States Census Beureau (2016, May 28). 21.3 Percent of U.S. Population Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month. Retrieved October 21, 2019, from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html

...Because women have consistently voted to expand government benefits to themselves
Lott, Jr, J. R., & Kenny, L. W. (1999). Did women's suffrage change the size and scope of government?. Journal of political Economy, 107(6), 1163-1198. Available from: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf
Bertocchi, G. (2011). The enfranchisement of women and the welfare state. European Economic Review, 55(4), 535-553. Available from: http://conference.iza.org/conference_files/ELIT2008/bertocchi_g1882.pdf
Abrams, B. A., & Settle, R. F. (1999). Women's suffrage and the growth of the welfare state. Public Choice, 100(3-4), 289-300. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30026099?seq=1
And men are the ones who pay for these benefits; Women consume more government resources than what they pay back in taxes.
u/xNOM (2015). The benefits gap -- a cursory analysis of US social security (OASI) and disability insurance (DI). r/MensRights. Available from: . Updated version with newer data:
Aziz, O., Gemmell, N., & Laws, A. (2013). The distribution of income and fiscal incidence by age and gender: Some evidence from New Zealand. Victoria University of Wellington Working Paper in Public Finance, (10). Available from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...mell/1c8cff018bec64646d696b3b18c0d85a743f81f9
Blaker, Magnus. (2017). Kvinner koster staten 113.000 kroner mer i året enn menn [Women cost the state NOK 113,000 more a year than men]. Side3. Available from: https://www.side3.no/vitenskap/kvinner-koster-staten-113000-kroner-mer-i-aret-enn-menn-4402331
Andersen, Torben K. (2013). Kvinder er en ”underskudsforretning” [Women are a "deficit business"]. mandagmorgen. Available from: https://www.mm.dk/artikel/kvinder-er-en-underskudsforretning
https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights...latest_uk_tax_data_are_in_british_women_paid/
https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/dr2iqa/us_social_security_oasi_and_disability_di_data/

Spoiler: Even more sources

Van Creveld, M. (2013). The privileged sex. DLVC Enterprises.
https://books.google.com/books/abou...ml?id=4szznAEACAAJ&source=kp_book_description
Rogers, S. C. (1975). female forms of power and the myth of male dominance: a model of female/male interaction in peasant society. American Ethnologist, 2(4), 727-756.
https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/ae.1975.2.4.02a00090
Bailey, J. (2002). Favoured or oppressed? Married women, property and ‘coverture’ in England, 1660–1800. Continuity and Change, 17(3), 351-372.
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:2e88e3f6-b270-4228-b930-9237c00e739f/download_file?file_format=application/pdf&safe_filename=Item.pdf&type_of_work=Journal article
Griffiths, F. J. (2013). women and reform in the central middle ages. In The Oxford Handbook of Women and Gender in Medieval Europe (p. 447). Oxford University Press.
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/vie...9582174.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199582174-e-036
Bax, E. B. (1896). The Legal Subjection of Men. Twentieth Century Press.
Second edition: https://archive.org/details/legalsubjection00baxgoog/
George, M. J. (2007). The "Great Taboo" and the Role of Patriarchy in Husband and Wife Abuse. International Journal of Men's Health, 6(1).
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1855/f217b082603d0ab37ea80c4741fceb8a4a23.pdf
"“Only the Instrument of the Law”: Baltimore’s Whipping Post"
https://www.mdhs.org/underbelly/2013/10/03/only-the-instrument-of-the-law-baltimores-whipping-post/
ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OPPOSED TO THE EXTENSION OF SUFFRAGE TO WOMEN: WOMAN’S PROTEST AGAINST WOMAN SUFFRAGE TO MEMBERS OF THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE, 1909.
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/gilded/power/text12/antisuffrageassoc.pdf
Abbott, Lyman. (1903). "Why Women Do Not Wish the Suffrage". The Atlantic
https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/306616/
Story, J. (1877). Commentaries on equity Jurisprudence: As administered in England and America (Vol. 2). Little, Brown.
https://books.google.com.my/books?id=AfFBAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Spence, G. (1850). The Equitable Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery: Comprising Its Rise, Progress and Final Establishment; to which is Prefixed, with a View to the Elucidation of the Main Subject, a Concise Account of the Leading Doctrines of the Common Law in Regard to Civil Rights; with an Attempt to Trace Them to Their Sources; and in which the Various Alterations Made by the Legislature Down to the Present Day are Noticed (Vol. 2). Lea and Blanchard.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=31RDAAAAcAAJ&lpg=PA515&dq=separate estate chancery&pg=PA515#v=onepage&q&f=false
Beard, Mary. (1946). Woman as a Force in History. Macmillan, New York.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/beard/woman-force/index.htm
Tait, A. A. (2014). The Beginning of the End of Coverture: A Reappraisal of the Married Woman's Separate Estate. Yale JL & Feminism, 26, 165.
https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2133&context=law-faculty-publications
Burnette, J. (2008). Gender, work and wages in industrial revolution Britain. Cambridge University Press.
https://books.google.com/books?id=gJEWvlqlEoIC&lpg=PA16&ots=eEpV4025qc&dq=info:VIfWu5LLPikJ:scholar.google.com/&lr&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=false

Info taken from this thread: https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/iu2ebj/women_could_and_did_own_property_and_have_rights/

The truth shall set us free

 

[Selfahate]

Cope bro women were forced into having sex with sub8 males throughout history

 

[Selfahate]

They call taking care of the kids oppresion while men were getting drafted dying on the battlefield.

Yes it is because she won't be given any medal or honor her work of raising the kids will be seen as nothing of significance

 

[Deleted member 275]

They call taking care of the kids oppresion while men were getting drafted dying on the battlefield.

This is actually the biggest blackpill.

Women telling us that life was difficult back then because they had 'no rights'. Meanwhile this was the life of the average man:

 

[mulattomaxxer]

Its strange to think that we are so easily influenced by the media. They could literally tell us anything and most people would believe them. I always thought it was weird that women were supposedely oppressed throughout history but you have female rulers throughout history like cleopatra and queen elizabeth the first.

 

[Marsiere214]

i cant imagine being a women for a day
i will suicide prolly

 

[Lasko123]

Men are oppressed

 

[Deleted member 4612]

Yes. This is the reason this gay earth is full of so many incels, because of our gay alien skulled great grandfathers who thought they deserved to get laid aswell. Only they didn't take into account their trash genetic quality.

Once you realize this, feminism is actually based af. Letting females naturally pick out the men who their biology deems worthy of reproducing with their successful genes.

but the problem is women just use birth control, or if they get pregnant in their teens they abort chads kids

and then they marry a betabuxxer and he reproduces

 

[Crowley]

[Bible]

 

[Deleted member 2632]

Women Oppression is a Myth pushed by Jews

Black Oppression is a Myth pushed by Jews
( Blacks are better off in Merica than Africa by far )

Jewish Oppression is a Myth ( The Jews have done far more awful things than Nazis ever could just look at Israel's atrocities agaisnt Middle East and USA or the Soviet Union )

 

[Ocelot]

Just re-read this.

Most giga-brain shit I've seen in a while tbh

clown world

 

[Deleted member 10185]

Then you need go back to history book. The only reason why women are doing better than males in dating is because they can use makeup. Males failos are much harder to fix.

 

[Deleted member 275]

Then you need go back to history book. The only reason why women are doing better than males in dating is because they can use makeup. Males failos are much harder to fix.

major cope. Hole>Dick. Period

 

[WayneBraaaah]

There is a lot of misinformation about the supposed "historical oppression" of women. While I don't deny that there were some unequal gender norms and practices (which usually went both ways), a lot of the claims around this topic are simply not true.
Most of these exaggerated claims can be traced back to a single source authored by a man named Sir William Blackstone who lived in England during the 1700s. He wrote about the system of coverture in Europe, which was a form of marriage practiced at the time.
Pretty much everything he wrote on this topic has since been debunked, and even he admitted that what he wrote wasn't true at the time he wrote it (which was in what he saw as "enlightened times" compared to a previous period in history that he thought he was writing about). The mythology inspired by his writings has nevertheless taken on a life of it's own.
Examples include the idea that women were treated like property, didn't have rights, and could be legally beaten by their husbands.
Many modern day academics even believe these things. They also tend to blindly cite each other in a kind of "echo chamber" without checking their sources. Which means that many otherwise credible looking sources on this topic have citation chains that either don't go anywhere, or eventually go back to the debunked claims made by Blackstone.
One academic paper formally analyzed those citation trails and was able to prove this in an objective manner:
George, M. J. (2007). The "Great Taboo" and the Role of Patriarchy in Husband and Wife Abuse. International Journal of Men's Health, 6(1).
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1855/f217b082603d0ab37ea80c4741fceb8a4a23.pdf
He was looking specifically at the claim that wife beating used to be legal. And besides providing plenty of evidence that it wasn't, he also called out these "Blackstone inspired papers" that were claiming it was true.
Another source from 1946 written by a female historian and suffragette dove into the history of some of these claims and discovered pretty much the same thing. She was upset that women's accomplishments in history were being downplayed by supposed "women's advocates" because they were hell-bent on proving that women were oppressed.
She went on to write an entire book about women's accomplishments in history in order to disprove this idea.
Here is one excerpt from her book where she tackles the fact that Blackstone was pretty much their only "source" that women were oppressed in history.

And another except:

(Emphasis added)
Beard, Mary. (1946). Woman as a Force in History. Macmillan, New York.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/beard/woman-force/index.htm
I included a list of bullet points below which are mainly about Medieval Europe, although some can be traced back to Roman times. At least one source containing evidence about divorced wives goes back to 597 CE. And it's also true that women have owned property and been allowed to divorce as far back as ancient Egypt.
A short summary about how men and women are treated in Arabic societies can be found here:

And some more information about female power structures that often get ignored by researchers can be found here:

https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/ae.1974.1.3.02a00100
Many people will swear up and down that woman had fewer rights not just in Arabic cultures, but also in Europe, and will point to the legal concept of coverture (as interpreted by Blackstone) to prove that.
Not only is this view factually wrong, but I think it does a great disservice to the real world accomplishments of women in history that are often brushed aside to peddle this agenda.
So to summarize:

• As a kind of default, property was held in the husband's name on behalf of the marital unit that also included the wife. The husband was only entitled to half of it, much like how marriage tends to work today (which many people, including contemporaries from the time, thought was unfair to men, not women).
• Husbands and wives were treated as a joint entity under the husband's name in common law for trivial matters, but in higher courts (known as courts of equity), they could also be treated as distinct persons. That means married couples could, and did, engage in contracts with each other, sue each other, and have separate estates, debts, and interests. A wife was not bound to her husband and her rights did not derive from him in any way.
• Men were not allowed to beat their wives. Spouses could, and did, prosecute each other for domestic violence in court. Court records from that time period prove this. (In the US, domestic violence laws at the federal level weren't passed untill around 1920, but domestic violence was still prosecuted under regular assault laws before that time; it was never actually legal, unlike what some people try to twist this around to mean).
• A dower was an "insurance plan" meant to secure a woman's financial independence in the event that her husband died or divorced her. The modern equivalent is alimony. It was not a "payment" that was used to purchase a wife, and the husband did not own her. The system was unfair to men, not to women, and in modern times we're still trying to get rid of alimony / palimony in the name of gender equality.
• Women could and did divorce their husbands. Court records from that time period prove this. They also tended to get better settlements than the husband did. Women as far back as 597 CE are recorded as living in estates that once belonged to their ex-husbands.
• Women could and did own property. Property deeds and marriage contracts from that time period prove this. In fact women owned property independent from their husbands more often than the reverse (what was hers was hers but what was his was usually also hers).
• Women could and did work. Accounting records from businesses at that time prove this. There's even evidence that women were paid exactly the same per unit of output as men (which is how labor was paid back then). Women did on average earn less which has been taken as evidence of a wage gap. But this was likely based on working hours and productivity differences between men and women, not discrimination.
• For most of history, education was a punishment that "taught" discipline, not facts. They were heavy on corporal punishment and forced labor. Which was meant to build character and instill discipline in children. The reason women weren't "educated" is because it was believed that they behaved themselves better and therefore didn't need to be educated. There was only a small overlap between education becoming useful for learning things, and women not being allowed to be educated.
• Inside the family unit, women were usually in charge, not men. This was especially true in pre-industrial Europe and is also true today.
• Women could and did hold power in history. Including running businesses and ruling over entire nations.
• Women received universal suffrage very shortly after men in most parts of the world. The reason it took longer for women was because a person's right to vote was tied to services and obligations that they were required to give to the state. Things like fire brigades, militia training, the draft, attending caucuses, paying taxes, etc. For men, the right to vote has never been something that was given to them for free, so the idea that women could get it for free wasn't "obvious" to people at the time (not even to other women). This nuance has been lost today because men's obligations to the state have largely gone away over time (everything except for the draft, and compulsory military training in countries that still do that).
• Women were instrumental in building and shaping the world we live in today. Unlike race or class, men and women have always lived together, shared similar spaces, and occupied the same positions in society.

Women received universal suffrage very shortly after men in most parts of the world. The reason it took longer for women was because a person's right to vote was tied to services and obligations that they were required to give to the state. Things like fire brigades, militia training, the draft, attending caucuses, paying taxes, etc. For men, the right to vote has never been something that was given to them for free, so the idea that women could get it for free wasn't "obvious" to people at the time (not even to other women). This nuance has been lost today because men's obligations to the state have largely gone away over time (everything except for the draft, and compulsory military training in countries that still do that). "

While, in my mind, the historical right to vote was tied at the hip to military service it has come to my attention recently that many people do not believe it work(s)(ed) that way. The idea is that the right to vote is not dependent on the draft.

After doing a bit of research, I will admit that I cannot find any US state or local law which ever made voter registration directly dependent on military service or draft registration. On top of that, the selective service draft did not even exist for much of the countries history.

However, conscription in other forms did exist. The state militia system has existed since 1792. The militia at that time was defined as ALL white, male citizens. Shortly before the emancipation proclamation, this was expanded to include black male citizens. And the militia act stated that "any number" of this group could be called into battle. It was was a more vague version of the draft, which did not specify HOW recruits would be selected. States were simply expected to produce a certain number of "volunteers" by any means necessary. Which, if you think about it, means it wasn't really voluntary.


Thus, every male who has ever met the basic eligibility requirements to vote in a US presidential election has also met the basic eligibility requirement to be pressed into military service through either the militia system or the draft.

Even then some women didn't think it was fair that they could vote on issues that men would be responsible for upholding (something known as a moral hazard -- making decisions for things that other people bear the costs of).

The source from The Atlantic (here) which was written in the early 1900s by a female anti-suffragette mentions the issue of prohibition. Which was often supported or opposed down gender lines. Women could vote to criminalize alcohol consumption for men which would then be enforced by other men.
Which is what ended up happening once women were given the right to vote. And was also one of the main reasons people supported or opposed women's suffrage in the US.

To this day, a majority of voters are women, and there's evidence that women have, in aggregate, used their disproportionate political power to pass laws that benefit them at the expense of men (I'm sure not maliciously, this is just what happens given enough time with that kind of political imbalance).

Spoiler: Some sources

Women receive more government benefits than men…
Lake, Rebecca (2016, May 23). 23 Shocking Statistics Of Welfare in America. Retrieved October 21, 2019, from https://www.creditdonkey.com/welfare-statistics.html
United States Census Beureau (2016, May 28). 21.3 Percent of U.S. Population Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month. Retrieved October 21, 2019, from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html

...Because women have consistently voted to expand government benefits to themselves
Lott, Jr, J. R., & Kenny, L. W. (1999). Did women's suffrage change the size and scope of government?. Journal of political Economy, 107(6), 1163-1198. Available from: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf
Bertocchi, G. (2011). The enfranchisement of women and the welfare state. European Economic Review, 55(4), 535-553. Available from: http://conference.iza.org/conference_files/ELIT2008/bertocchi_g1882.pdf
Abrams, B. A., & Settle, R. F. (1999). Women's suffrage and the growth of the welfare state. Public Choice, 100(3-4), 289-300. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30026099?seq=1
And men are the ones who pay for these benefits; Women consume more government resources than what they pay back in taxes.
u/xNOM (2015). The benefits gap -- a cursory analysis of US social security (OASI) and disability insurance (DI). r/MensRights. Available from: . Updated version with newer data:
Aziz, O., Gemmell, N., & Laws, A. (2013). The distribution of income and fiscal incidence by age and gender: Some evidence from New Zealand. Victoria University of Wellington Working Paper in Public Finance, (10). Available from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...mell/1c8cff018bec64646d696b3b18c0d85a743f81f9
Blaker, Magnus. (2017). Kvinner koster staten 113.000 kroner mer i året enn menn [Women cost the state NOK 113,000 more a year than men]. Side3. Available from: https://www.side3.no/vitenskap/kvinner-koster-staten-113000-kroner-mer-i-aret-enn-menn-4402331
Andersen, Torben K. (2013). Kvinder er en ”underskudsforretning” [Women are a "deficit business"]. mandagmorgen. Available from: https://www.mm.dk/artikel/kvinder-er-en-underskudsforretning
https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights...latest_uk_tax_data_are_in_british_women_paid/
https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/dr2iqa/us_social_security_oasi_and_disability_di_data/

Spoiler: Even more sources

Van Creveld, M. (2013). The privileged sex. DLVC Enterprises.
https://books.google.com/books/abou...ml?id=4szznAEACAAJ&source=kp_book_description
Rogers, S. C. (1975). female forms of power and the myth of male dominance: a model of female/male interaction in peasant society. American Ethnologist, 2(4), 727-756.
https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/ae.1975.2.4.02a00090
Bailey, J. (2002). Favoured or oppressed? Married women, property and ‘coverture’ in England, 1660–1800. Continuity and Change, 17(3), 351-372.
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:2e88e3f6-b270-4228-b930-9237c00e739f/download_file?file_format=application/pdf&safe_filename=Item.pdf&type_of_work=Journal article
Griffiths, F. J. (2013). women and reform in the central middle ages. In The Oxford Handbook of Women and Gender in Medieval Europe (p. 447). Oxford University Press.
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/vie...9582174.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199582174-e-036
Bax, E. B. (1896). The Legal Subjection of Men. Twentieth Century Press.
Second edition: https://archive.org/details/legalsubjection00baxgoog/
George, M. J. (2007). The "Great Taboo" and the Role of Patriarchy in Husband and Wife Abuse. International Journal of Men's Health, 6(1).
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1855/f217b082603d0ab37ea80c4741fceb8a4a23.pdf
"“Only the Instrument of the Law”: Baltimore’s Whipping Post"
https://www.mdhs.org/underbelly/2013/10/03/only-the-instrument-of-the-law-baltimores-whipping-post/
ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OPPOSED TO THE EXTENSION OF SUFFRAGE TO WOMEN: WOMAN’S PROTEST AGAINST WOMAN SUFFRAGE TO MEMBERS OF THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE, 1909.
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/gilded/power/text12/antisuffrageassoc.pdf
Abbott, Lyman. (1903). "Why Women Do Not Wish the Suffrage". The Atlantic
https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/306616/
Story, J. (1877). Commentaries on equity Jurisprudence: As administered in England and America (Vol. 2). Little, Brown.
https://books.google.com.my/books?id=AfFBAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Spence, G. (1850). The Equitable Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery: Comprising Its Rise, Progress and Final Establishment; to which is Prefixed, with a View to the Elucidation of the Main Subject, a Concise Account of the Leading Doctrines of the Common Law in Regard to Civil Rights; with an Attempt to Trace Them to Their Sources; and in which the Various Alterations Made by the Legislature Down to the Present Day are Noticed (Vol. 2). Lea and Blanchard.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=31RDAAAAcAAJ&lpg=PA515&dq=separate estate chancery&pg=PA515#v=onepage&q&f=false
Beard, Mary. (1946). Woman as a Force in History. Macmillan, New York.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/beard/woman-force/index.htm
Tait, A. A. (2014). The Beginning of the End of Coverture: A Reappraisal of the Married Woman's Separate Estate. Yale JL & Feminism, 26, 165.
https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2133&context=law-faculty-publications
Burnette, J. (2008). Gender, work and wages in industrial revolution Britain. Cambridge University Press.
https://books.google.com/books?id=gJEWvlqlEoIC&lpg=PA16&ots=eEpV4025qc&dq=info:VIfWu5LLPikJ:scholar.google.com/&lr&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=false

Info taken from this thread: https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/iu2ebj/women_could_and_did_own_property_and_have_rights/

Sometimes I think it's easier to understand and respect the chicken than the woman.

 

[SMVbender]

bookmarked gona read

 

[Naser Orić]

Women were opressed because they weren't sexually liberated and therefore couldn't form harems around Chad.

There's nothing worse to foids than having to be obey non Chad looksmatches.

.

 

[patricknotstar]

There is a lot of misinformation about the supposed "historical oppression" of women. While I don't deny that there were some unequal gender norms and practices (which usually went both ways), a lot of the claims around this topic are simply not true.
Most of these exaggerated claims can be traced back to a single source authored by a man named Sir William Blackstone who lived in England during the 1700s. He wrote about the system of coverture in Europe, which was a form of marriage practiced at the time.
Pretty much everything he wrote on this topic has since been debunked, and even he admitted that what he wrote wasn't true at the time he wrote it (which was in what he saw as "enlightened times" compared to a previous period in history that he thought he was writing about). The mythology inspired by his writings has nevertheless taken on a life of it's own.
Examples include the idea that women were treated like property, didn't have rights, and could be legally beaten by their husbands.
Many modern day academics even believe these things. They also tend to blindly cite each other in a kind of "echo chamber" without checking their sources. Which means that many otherwise credible looking sources on this topic have citation chains that either don't go anywhere, or eventually go back to the debunked claims made by Blackstone.
One academic paper formally analyzed those citation trails and was able to prove this in an objective manner:
George, M. J. (2007). The "Great Taboo" and the Role of Patriarchy in Husband and Wife Abuse. International Journal of Men's Health, 6(1).
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1855/f217b082603d0ab37ea80c4741fceb8a4a23.pdf
He was looking specifically at the claim that wife beating used to be legal. And besides providing plenty of evidence that it wasn't, he also called out these "Blackstone inspired papers" that were claiming it was true.
Another source from 1946 written by a female historian and suffragette dove into the history of some of these claims and discovered pretty much the same thing. She was upset that women's accomplishments in history were being downplayed by supposed "women's advocates" because they were hell-bent on proving that women were oppressed.
She went on to write an entire book about women's accomplishments in history in order to disprove this idea.
Here is one excerpt from her book where she tackles the fact that Blackstone was pretty much their only "source" that women were oppressed in history.

And another except:

(Emphasis added)
Beard, Mary. (1946). Woman as a Force in History. Macmillan, New York.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/beard/woman-force/index.htm
I included a list of bullet points below which are mainly about Medieval Europe, although some can be traced back to Roman times. At least one source containing evidence about divorced wives goes back to 597 CE. And it's also true that women have owned property and been allowed to divorce as far back as ancient Egypt.
A short summary about how men and women are treated in Arabic societies can be found here:

And some more information about female power structures that often get ignored by researchers can be found here:

https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/ae.1974.1.3.02a00100
Many people will swear up and down that woman had fewer rights not just in Arabic cultures, but also in Europe, and will point to the legal concept of coverture (as interpreted by Blackstone) to prove that.
Not only is this view factually wrong, but I think it does a great disservice to the real world accomplishments of women in history that are often brushed aside to peddle this agenda.
So to summarize:

• As a kind of default, property was held in the husband's name on behalf of the marital unit that also included the wife. The husband was only entitled to half of it, much like how marriage tends to work today (which many people, including contemporaries from the time, thought was unfair to men, not women).
• Husbands and wives were treated as a joint entity under the husband's name in common law for trivial matters, but in higher courts (known as courts of equity), they could also be treated as distinct persons. That means married couples could, and did, engage in contracts with each other, sue each other, and have separate estates, debts, and interests. A wife was not bound to her husband and her rights did not derive from him in any way.
• Men were not allowed to beat their wives. Spouses could, and did, prosecute each other for domestic violence in court. Court records from that time period prove this. (In the US, domestic violence laws at the federal level weren't passed untill around 1920, but domestic violence was still prosecuted under regular assault laws before that time; it was never actually legal, unlike what some people try to twist this around to mean).
• A dower was an "insurance plan" meant to secure a woman's financial independence in the event that her husband died or divorced her. The modern equivalent is alimony. It was not a "payment" that was used to purchase a wife, and the husband did not own her. The system was unfair to men, not to women, and in modern times we're still trying to get rid of alimony / palimony in the name of gender equality.
• Women could and did divorce their husbands. Court records from that time period prove this. They also tended to get better settlements than the husband did. Women as far back as 597 CE are recorded as living in estates that once belonged to their ex-husbands.
• Women could and did own property. Property deeds and marriage contracts from that time period prove this. In fact women owned property independent from their husbands more often than the reverse (what was hers was hers but what was his was usually also hers).
• Women could and did work. Accounting records from businesses at that time prove this. There's even evidence that women were paid exactly the same per unit of output as men (which is how labor was paid back then). Women did on average earn less which has been taken as evidence of a wage gap. But this was likely based on working hours and productivity differences between men and women, not discrimination.
• For most of history, education was a punishment that "taught" discipline, not facts. They were heavy on corporal punishment and forced labor. Which was meant to build character and instill discipline in children. The reason women weren't "educated" is because it was believed that they behaved themselves better and therefore didn't need to be educated. There was only a small overlap between education becoming useful for learning things, and women not being allowed to be educated.
• Inside the family unit, women were usually in charge, not men. This was especially true in pre-industrial Europe and is also true today.
• Women could and did hold power in history. Including running businesses and ruling over entire nations.
• Women received universal suffrage very shortly after men in most parts of the world. The reason it took longer for women was because a person's right to vote was tied to services and obligations that they were required to give to the state. Things like fire brigades, militia training, the draft, attending caucuses, paying taxes, etc. For men, the right to vote has never been something that was given to them for free, so the idea that women could get it for free wasn't "obvious" to people at the time (not even to other women). This nuance has been lost today because men's obligations to the state have largely gone away over time (everything except for the draft, and compulsory military training in countries that still do that).
• Women were instrumental in building and shaping the world we live in today. Unlike race or class, men and women have always lived together, shared similar spaces, and occupied the same positions in society.

Women received universal suffrage very shortly after men in most parts of the world. The reason it took longer for women was because a person's right to vote was tied to services and obligations that they were required to give to the state. Things like fire brigades, militia training, the draft, attending caucuses, paying taxes, etc. For men, the right to vote has never been something that was given to them for free, so the idea that women could get it for free wasn't "obvious" to people at the time (not even to other women). This nuance has been lost today because men's obligations to the state have largely gone away over time (everything except for the draft, and compulsory military training in countries that still do that). "

While, in my mind, the historical right to vote was tied at the hip to military service it has come to my attention recently that many people do not believe it work(s)(ed) that way. The idea is that the right to vote is not dependent on the draft.

After doing a bit of research, I will admit that I cannot find any US state or local law which ever made voter registration directly dependent on military service or draft registration. On top of that, the selective service draft did not even exist for much of the countries history.

However, conscription in other forms did exist. The state militia system has existed since 1792. The militia at that time was defined as ALL white, male citizens. Shortly before the emancipation proclamation, this was expanded to include black male citizens. And the militia act stated that "any number" of this group could be called into battle. It was was a more vague version of the draft, which did not specify HOW recruits would be selected. States were simply expected to produce a certain number of "volunteers" by any means necessary. Which, if you think about it, means it wasn't really voluntary.


Thus, every male who has ever met the basic eligibility requirements to vote in a US presidential election has also met the basic eligibility requirement to be pressed into military service through either the militia system or the draft.

Even then some women didn't think it was fair that they could vote on issues that men would be responsible for upholding (something known as a moral hazard -- making decisions for things that other people bear the costs of).

The source from The Atlantic (here) which was written in the early 1900s by a female anti-suffragette mentions the issue of prohibition. Which was often supported or opposed down gender lines. Women could vote to criminalize alcohol consumption for men which would then be enforced by other men.
Which is what ended up happening once women were given the right to vote. And was also one of the main reasons people supported or opposed women's suffrage in the US.

To this day, a majority of voters are women, and there's evidence that women have, in aggregate, used their disproportionate political power to pass laws that benefit them at the expense of men (I'm sure not maliciously, this is just what happens given enough time with that kind of political imbalance).

Spoiler: Some sources

Women receive more government benefits than men…
Lake, Rebecca (2016, May 23). 23 Shocking Statistics Of Welfare in America. Retrieved October 21, 2019, from https://www.creditdonkey.com/welfare-statistics.html
United States Census Beureau (2016, May 28). 21.3 Percent of U.S. Population Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month. Retrieved October 21, 2019, from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html

...Because women have consistently voted to expand government benefits to themselves
Lott, Jr, J. R., & Kenny, L. W. (1999). Did women's suffrage change the size and scope of government?. Journal of political Economy, 107(6), 1163-1198. Available from: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf
Bertocchi, G. (2011). The enfranchisement of women and the welfare state. European Economic Review, 55(4), 535-553. Available from: http://conference.iza.org/conference_files/ELIT2008/bertocchi_g1882.pdf
Abrams, B. A., & Settle, R. F. (1999). Women's suffrage and the growth of the welfare state. Public Choice, 100(3-4), 289-300. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30026099?seq=1
And men are the ones who pay for these benefits; Women consume more government resources than what they pay back in taxes.
u/xNOM (2015). The benefits gap -- a cursory analysis of US social security (OASI) and disability insurance (DI). r/MensRights. Available from: . Updated version with newer data:
Aziz, O., Gemmell, N., & Laws, A. (2013). The distribution of income and fiscal incidence by age and gender: Some evidence from New Zealand. Victoria University of Wellington Working Paper in Public Finance, (10). Available from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...mell/1c8cff018bec64646d696b3b18c0d85a743f81f9
Blaker, Magnus. (2017). Kvinner koster staten 113.000 kroner mer i året enn menn [Women cost the state NOK 113,000 more a year than men]. Side3. Available from: https://www.side3.no/vitenskap/kvinner-koster-staten-113000-kroner-mer-i-aret-enn-menn-4402331
Andersen, Torben K. (2013). Kvinder er en ”underskudsforretning” [Women are a "deficit business"]. mandagmorgen. Available from: https://www.mm.dk/artikel/kvinder-er-en-underskudsforretning
https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights...latest_uk_tax_data_are_in_british_women_paid/
https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/dr2iqa/us_social_security_oasi_and_disability_di_data/

Spoiler: Even more sources

Van Creveld, M. (2013). The privileged sex. DLVC Enterprises.
https://books.google.com/books/abou...ml?id=4szznAEACAAJ&source=kp_book_description
Rogers, S. C. (1975). female forms of power and the myth of male dominance: a model of female/male interaction in peasant society. American Ethnologist, 2(4), 727-756.
https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/ae.1975.2.4.02a00090
Bailey, J. (2002). Favoured or oppressed? Married women, property and ‘coverture’ in England, 1660–1800. Continuity and Change, 17(3), 351-372.
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:2e88e3f6-b270-4228-b930-9237c00e739f/download_file?file_format=application/pdf&safe_filename=Item.pdf&type_of_work=Journal article
Griffiths, F. J. (2013). women and reform in the central middle ages. In The Oxford Handbook of Women and Gender in Medieval Europe (p. 447). Oxford University Press.
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/vie...9582174.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199582174-e-036
Bax, E. B. (1896). The Legal Subjection of Men. Twentieth Century Press.
Second edition: https://archive.org/details/legalsubjection00baxgoog/
George, M. J. (2007). The "Great Taboo" and the Role of Patriarchy in Husband and Wife Abuse. International Journal of Men's Health, 6(1).
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1855/f217b082603d0ab37ea80c4741fceb8a4a23.pdf
"“Only the Instrument of the Law”: Baltimore’s Whipping Post"
https://www.mdhs.org/underbelly/2013/10/03/only-the-instrument-of-the-law-baltimores-whipping-post/
ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OPPOSED TO THE EXTENSION OF SUFFRAGE TO WOMEN: WOMAN’S PROTEST AGAINST WOMAN SUFFRAGE TO MEMBERS OF THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE, 1909.
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/gilded/power/text12/antisuffrageassoc.pdf
Abbott, Lyman. (1903). "Why Women Do Not Wish the Suffrage". The Atlantic
https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/306616/
Story, J. (1877). Commentaries on equity Jurisprudence: As administered in England and America (Vol. 2). Little, Brown.
https://books.google.com.my/books?id=AfFBAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Spence, G. (1850). The Equitable Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery: Comprising Its Rise, Progress and Final Establishment; to which is Prefixed, with a View to the Elucidation of the Main Subject, a Concise Account of the Leading Doctrines of the Common Law in Regard to Civil Rights; with an Attempt to Trace Them to Their Sources; and in which the Various Alterations Made by the Legislature Down to the Present Day are Noticed (Vol. 2). Lea and Blanchard.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=31RDAAAAcAAJ&lpg=PA515&dq=separate estate chancery&pg=PA515#v=onepage&q&f=false
Beard, Mary. (1946). Woman as a Force in History. Macmillan, New York.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/beard/woman-force/index.htm
Tait, A. A. (2014). The Beginning of the End of Coverture: A Reappraisal of the Married Woman's Separate Estate. Yale JL & Feminism, 26, 165.
https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2133&context=law-faculty-publications
Burnette, J. (2008). Gender, work and wages in industrial revolution Britain. Cambridge University Press.
https://books.google.com/books?id=gJEWvlqlEoIC&lpg=PA16&ots=eEpV4025qc&dq=info:VIfWu5LLPikJ:scholar.google.com/&lr&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=false

Info taken from this thread: https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/iu2ebj/women_could_and_did_own_property_and_have_rights/

Dude just wrote a fucken PhD paper for a looksmax thread

 

[Naser Orić]

Dude just wrote a fucken PhD paper for a looksmax thread

Why does it sound like ur condemning him? High tier threads like this are what keeps the place going. Not low iq shitpost threads.

 

[spark]

Yes. This is the reason this gay earth is full of so many incels, because of our gay alien skulled great grandfathers who thought they deserved to get laid aswell. Only they didn't take into account their trash genetic quality.

Once you realize this, feminism is actually based af. Letting females naturally pick out the men who their biology deems worthy of reproducing with their successful genes.

women fuck gigachads on birth control then have kids with some random subhuman nerd

happens most of the time

 

[lonelystoner]

Women should their rights taken away ASAP...a fucking sap

 

[Golang]

So it was over even for ancientcels

 

[Deleted member 5969]

Knew this tbh

 

[Deleted member 10374]

There is a lot of misinformation about the supposed "historical oppression" of women. While I don't deny that there were some unequal gender norms and practices (which usually went both ways), a lot of the claims around this topic are simply not true.
Most of these exaggerated claims can be traced back to a single source authored by a man named Sir William Blackstone who lived in England during the 1700s. He wrote about the system of coverture in Europe, which was a form of marriage practiced at the time.
Pretty much everything he wrote on this topic has since been debunked, and even he admitted that what he wrote wasn't true at the time he wrote it (which was in what he saw as "enlightened times" compared to a previous period in history that he thought he was writing about). The mythology inspired by his writings has nevertheless taken on a life of it's own.
Examples include the idea that women were treated like property, didn't have rights, and could be legally beaten by their husbands.
Many modern day academics even believe these things. They also tend to blindly cite each other in a kind of "echo chamber" without checking their sources. Which means that many otherwise credible looking sources on this topic have citation chains that either don't go anywhere, or eventually go back to the debunked claims made by Blackstone.
One academic paper formally analyzed those citation trails and was able to prove this in an objective manner:
George, M. J. (2007). The "Great Taboo" and the Role of Patriarchy in Husband and Wife Abuse. International Journal of Men's Health, 6(1).
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1855/f217b082603d0ab37ea80c4741fceb8a4a23.pdf
He was looking specifically at the claim that wife beating used to be legal. And besides providing plenty of evidence that it wasn't, he also called out these "Blackstone inspired papers" that were claiming it was true.
Another source from 1946 written by a female historian and suffragette dove into the history of some of these claims and discovered pretty much the same thing. She was upset that women's accomplishments in history were being downplayed by supposed "women's advocates" because they were hell-bent on proving that women were oppressed.
She went on to write an entire book about women's accomplishments in history in order to disprove this idea.
Here is one excerpt from her book where she tackles the fact that Blackstone was pretty much their only "source" that women were oppressed in history.

And another except:

(Emphasis added)
Beard, Mary. (1946). Woman as a Force in History. Macmillan, New York.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/beard/woman-force/index.htm
I included a list of bullet points below which are mainly about Medieval Europe, although some can be traced back to Roman times. At least one source containing evidence about divorced wives goes back to 597 CE. And it's also true that women have owned property and been allowed to divorce as far back as ancient Egypt.
A short summary about how men and women are treated in Arabic societies can be found here:

And some more information about female power structures that often get ignored by researchers can be found here:

https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/ae.1974.1.3.02a00100
Many people will swear up and down that woman had fewer rights not just in Arabic cultures, but also in Europe, and will point to the legal concept of coverture (as interpreted by Blackstone) to prove that.
Not only is this view factually wrong, but I think it does a great disservice to the real world accomplishments of women in history that are often brushed aside to peddle this agenda.
So to summarize:

• As a kind of default, property was held in the husband's name on behalf of the marital unit that also included the wife. The husband was only entitled to half of it, much like how marriage tends to work today (which many people, including contemporaries from the time, thought was unfair to men, not women).
• Husbands and wives were treated as a joint entity under the husband's name in common law for trivial matters, but in higher courts (known as courts of equity), they could also be treated as distinct persons. That means married couples could, and did, engage in contracts with each other, sue each other, and have separate estates, debts, and interests. A wife was not bound to her husband and her rights did not derive from him in any way.
• Men were not allowed to beat their wives. Spouses could, and did, prosecute each other for domestic violence in court. Court records from that time period prove this. (In the US, domestic violence laws at the federal level weren't passed untill around 1920, but domestic violence was still prosecuted under regular assault laws before that time; it was never actually legal, unlike what some people try to twist this around to mean).
• A dower was an "insurance plan" meant to secure a woman's financial independence in the event that her husband died or divorced her. The modern equivalent is alimony. It was not a "payment" that was used to purchase a wife, and the husband did not own her. The system was unfair to men, not to women, and in modern times we're still trying to get rid of alimony / palimony in the name of gender equality.
• Women could and did divorce their husbands. Court records from that time period prove this. They also tended to get better settlements than the husband did. Women as far back as 597 CE are recorded as living in estates that once belonged to their ex-husbands.
• Women could and did own property. Property deeds and marriage contracts from that time period prove this. In fact women owned property independent from their husbands more often than the reverse (what was hers was hers but what was his was usually also hers).
• Women could and did work. Accounting records from businesses at that time prove this. There's even evidence that women were paid exactly the same per unit of output as men (which is how labor was paid back then). Women did on average earn less which has been taken as evidence of a wage gap. But this was likely based on working hours and productivity differences between men and women, not discrimination.
• For most of history, education was a punishment that "taught" discipline, not facts. They were heavy on corporal punishment and forced labor. Which was meant to build character and instill discipline in children. The reason women weren't "educated" is because it was believed that they behaved themselves better and therefore didn't need to be educated. There was only a small overlap between education becoming useful for learning things, and women not being allowed to be educated.
• Inside the family unit, women were usually in charge, not men. This was especially true in pre-industrial Europe and is also true today.
• Women could and did hold power in history. Including running businesses and ruling over entire nations.
• Women received universal suffrage very shortly after men in most parts of the world. The reason it took longer for women was because a person's right to vote was tied to services and obligations that they were required to give to the state. Things like fire brigades, militia training, the draft, attending caucuses, paying taxes, etc. For men, the right to vote has never been something that was given to them for free, so the idea that women could get it for free wasn't "obvious" to people at the time (not even to other women). This nuance has been lost today because men's obligations to the state have largely gone away over time (everything except for the draft, and compulsory military training in countries that still do that).
• Women were instrumental in building and shaping the world we live in today. Unlike race or class, men and women have always lived together, shared similar spaces, and occupied the same positions in society.

Women received universal suffrage very shortly after men in most parts of the world. The reason it took longer for women was because a person's right to vote was tied to services and obligations that they were required to give to the state. Things like fire brigades, militia training, the draft, attending caucuses, paying taxes, etc. For men, the right to vote has never been something that was given to them for free, so the idea that women could get it for free wasn't "obvious" to people at the time (not even to other women). This nuance has been lost today because men's obligations to the state have largely gone away over time (everything except for the draft, and compulsory military training in countries that still do that). "

While, in my mind, the historical right to vote was tied at the hip to military service it has come to my attention recently that many people do not believe it work(s)(ed) that way. The idea is that the right to vote is not dependent on the draft.

After doing a bit of research, I will admit that I cannot find any US state or local law which ever made voter registration directly dependent on military service or draft registration. On top of that, the selective service draft did not even exist for much of the countries history.

However, conscription in other forms did exist. The state militia system has existed since 1792. The militia at that time was defined as ALL white, male citizens. Shortly before the emancipation proclamation, this was expanded to include black male citizens. And the militia act stated that "any number" of this group could be called into battle. It was was a more vague version of the draft, which did not specify HOW recruits would be selected. States were simply expected to produce a certain number of "volunteers" by any means necessary. Which, if you think about it, means it wasn't really voluntary.


Thus, every male who has ever met the basic eligibility requirements to vote in a US presidential election has also met the basic eligibility requirement to be pressed into military service through either the militia system or the draft.

Even then some women didn't think it was fair that they could vote on issues that men would be responsible for upholding (something known as a moral hazard -- making decisions for things that other people bear the costs of).

The source from The Atlantic (here) which was written in the early 1900s by a female anti-suffragette mentions the issue of prohibition. Which was often supported or opposed down gender lines. Women could vote to criminalize alcohol consumption for men which would then be enforced by other men.
Which is what ended up happening once women were given the right to vote. And was also one of the main reasons people supported or opposed women's suffrage in the US.

To this day, a majority of voters are women, and there's evidence that women have, in aggregate, used their disproportionate political power to pass laws that benefit them at the expense of men (I'm sure not maliciously, this is just what happens given enough time with that kind of political imbalance).

Spoiler: Some sources

Women receive more government benefits than men…
Lake, Rebecca (2016, May 23). 23 Shocking Statistics Of Welfare in America. Retrieved October 21, 2019, from https://www.creditdonkey.com/welfare-statistics.html
United States Census Beureau (2016, May 28). 21.3 Percent of U.S. Population Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month. Retrieved October 21, 2019, from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html

...Because women have consistently voted to expand government benefits to themselves
Lott, Jr, J. R., & Kenny, L. W. (1999). Did women's suffrage change the size and scope of government?. Journal of political Economy, 107(6), 1163-1198. Available from: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf
Bertocchi, G. (2011). The enfranchisement of women and the welfare state. European Economic Review, 55(4), 535-553. Available from: http://conference.iza.org/conference_files/ELIT2008/bertocchi_g1882.pdf
Abrams, B. A., & Settle, R. F. (1999). Women's suffrage and the growth of the welfare state. Public Choice, 100(3-4), 289-300. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30026099?seq=1
And men are the ones who pay for these benefits; Women consume more government resources than what they pay back in taxes.
u/xNOM (2015). The benefits gap -- a cursory analysis of US social security (OASI) and disability insurance (DI). r/MensRights. Available from: . Updated version with newer data:
Aziz, O., Gemmell, N., & Laws, A. (2013). The distribution of income and fiscal incidence by age and gender: Some evidence from New Zealand. Victoria University of Wellington Working Paper in Public Finance, (10). Available from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...mell/1c8cff018bec64646d696b3b18c0d85a743f81f9
Blaker, Magnus. (2017). Kvinner koster staten 113.000 kroner mer i året enn menn [Women cost the state NOK 113,000 more a year than men]. Side3. Available from: https://www.side3.no/vitenskap/kvinner-koster-staten-113000-kroner-mer-i-aret-enn-menn-4402331
Andersen, Torben K. (2013). Kvinder er en ”underskudsforretning” [Women are a "deficit business"]. mandagmorgen. Available from: https://www.mm.dk/artikel/kvinder-er-en-underskudsforretning

Spoiler: Even more sources

Van Creveld, M. (2013). The privileged sex. DLVC Enterprises.
https://books.google.com/books/abou...ml?id=4szznAEACAAJ&source=kp_book_description
Rogers, S. C. (1975). female forms of power and the myth of male dominance: a model of female/male interaction in peasant society. American Ethnologist, 2(4), 727-756.
https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/ae.1975.2.4.02a00090
Bailey, J. (2002). Favoured or oppressed? Married women, property and ‘coverture’ in England, 1660–1800. Continuity and Change, 17(3), 351-372.
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:2e88e3f6-b270-4228-b930-9237c00e739f/download_file?file_format=application/pdf&safe_filename=Item.pdf&type_of_work=Journal article
Griffiths, F. J. (2013). women and reform in the central middle ages. In The Oxford Handbook of Women and Gender in Medieval Europe (p. 447). Oxford University Press.
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/vie...9582174.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199582174-e-036
Bax, E. B. (1896). The Legal Subjection of Men. Twentieth Century Press.
Second edition: https://archive.org/details/legalsubjection00baxgoog/
George, M. J. (2007). The "Great Taboo" and the Role of Patriarchy in Husband and Wife Abuse. International Journal of Men's Health, 6(1).
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1855/f217b082603d0ab37ea80c4741fceb8a4a23.pdf
"“Only the Instrument of the Law”: Baltimore’s Whipping Post"
https://www.mdhs.org/underbelly/2013/10/03/only-the-instrument-of-the-law-baltimores-whipping-post/
ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OPPOSED TO THE EXTENSION OF SUFFRAGE TO WOMEN: WOMAN’S PROTEST AGAINST WOMAN SUFFRAGE TO MEMBERS OF THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE, 1909.
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/gilded/power/text12/antisuffrageassoc.pdf
Abbott, Lyman. (1903). "Why Women Do Not Wish the Suffrage". The Atlantic
https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/306616/
Story, J. (1877). Commentaries on equity Jurisprudence: As administered in England and America (Vol. 2). Little, Brown.
https://books.google.com.my/books?id=AfFBAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Spence, G. (1850). The Equitable Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery: Comprising Its Rise, Progress and Final Establishment; to which is Prefixed, with a View to the Elucidation of the Main Subject, a Concise Account of the Leading Doctrines of the Common Law in Regard to Civil Rights; with an Attempt to Trace Them to Their Sources; and in which the Various Alterations Made by the Legislature Down to the Present Day are Noticed (Vol. 2). Lea and Blanchard.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=31RDAAAAcAAJ&lpg=PA515&dq=separate estate chancery&pg=PA515#v=onepage&q&f=false
Beard, Mary. (1946). Woman as a Force in History. Macmillan, New York.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/beard/woman-force/index.htm
Tait, A. A. (2014). The Beginning of the End of Coverture: A Reappraisal of the Married Woman's Separate Estate. Yale JL & Feminism, 26, 165.
https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2133&context=law-faculty-publications
Burnette, J. (2008). Gender, work and wages in industrial revolution Britain. Cambridge University Press.
https://books.google.com/books?id=gJEWvlqlEoIC&lpg=PA16&ots=eEpV4025qc&dq=info:VIfWu5LLPikJ:scholar.google.com/&lr&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=false

Info taken from this thread: https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/iu2ebj/women_could_and_did_own_property_and_have_rights/

didn read but from the title i understand u have 0 experience with girls

 

[Deleted member 8853]

Albanian society was the most based anti degeneracy society in the past. No women was allowed to marry a man just because he was chad looking only.

Nowadays degeneracy has spread even to our country. It's over.

 

[AutismMaxing]

The world has always been pro-female and anti-men.

Yes. It's biological.

Men Value women. Women value children (But to a lesser degree). Women and Children are the only things society values.

Based, but I still think feminism is based because it's better to atleast have a chad dad and subhuman mum than both subhuman mum & dad. It atleast increases the chances that offspring will be gl, but really the best thing for our species would probably just be to find a new planet, learn to travel space. Let ONLY the gl people go to the new planet and leave the rest subhuman genetic trash to rot on gay earth

It doesn't work like that. Women mate with only the top men when there are no strong cultural influences to stop them from doing this (ie: no sex before marriage & no divorce enforced with public stoning as a historical example).

If every guy was "good looking" then women would consider the bottom 60% of men ugly. There are differing reproductive optimal fitness values for men and women; there's lots of info on this all over the internet but it's long since been proven in main stream science.

Many people speculate that this will cause society to collapse (no religious culture restrictions to promote assortative mating) because as most men are sexless and alone, crime increases, and political instability increases.