Posted on 03/03/2012 7:05:40 PM PST by Borges
All of us have been taught how women have supposedly been oppressed throughout human existence, and that this was pervasive, systematic, and endorsed by ordinary men who presumably had it much better than women. In reality, this narrative is entirely fabricated. The average man was forced to risk death on the battlefield, at sea, or in mines, while most women stayed indoors tending to children and household duties. Male life expectancy was always significantly lower than that of females, and still is.
Warfare has been a near constant feature of human society before the modern era, and whenever two tribes or kingdoms went to war with each other, the losing side saw many of its fighting-age men exterminated, while the women were assimilated into the invading society. Now, becoming a concubine or a housekeeper is an unfortunate fate, but not nearly as bad as being slaughtered in battle as the men were. To anyone who disagrees, would you like for the men and women to trade outcomes?
Most of this narrative stems from 'feminists' comparing the plight of average women to the topmost men (the monarch and other aristocrats), rather than to the average man. This practice is known as apex fallacy, and whether accidental or deliberate, entirely misrepresents reality. To approximate the conditions of the average woman to the average man (the key word being 'average') in the Western world of a century ago, simply observe the lives of the poorest peasants in poor countries today. Both men and women have to perform tedious work, have insufficient food and clothing, and limited opportunities for upliftment.
As far as selective anecdotes like voting rights go, in the vast majority of cases, men could not vote either. In fact, if one compares every nation state from every century, virtually all of them extended exactly the same voting rights (or lack thereof) to men and women. Even today, out of 200 sovereign states, there are exactly zero that have a different class of voting rights to men and women. Any claim that women were being denied rights than men were given in even 0.1% of historical instances, falls flat.
This is not to deny that genuine atrocities like genital mutilation have been perpetrated against women; they have and still are. But men also experienced atrocities of comparable horror at the same time, which is simply not mentioned. In fact, when a man is genitally mutilated by a woman, other women actually find this humorous, and are proud to say so publicly.
It is already wrong when a contemporary group seeks reparations from an injustice that occurred over a century ago to people who are no longer alive. It is even worse when this oppression itself is a fabrication. The narrative of female oppression by men should be rejected and refuted as the highly selective and historically false narrative that it is. In fact, this myth is evidence not of historical oppression, but of the vastly different propensity to complain between the two genders.
Christianity essentially elevated the female—and put them on a pedestal. Our culture gave women the control over the selection of a husband—unlike any culture in the history of the world.
Western Civilization with the adoption of Christianity gave us concepts like Common Law and dignity and worth of every individual including women and the weak and sick and children. Chivalry and Romance come from Christianity.
The war is on the male—to destroy the patriarchy—because that will collapse the culture—men are always needed to protect and fight for rights. They are attacking males with both the homosexual movement and the feminist movement—and both destroy male children’s development and demonize male behavior.
They particularly (Marxists) are attacking individualism and risk—working on “group think”. They are destroying all Virtue—because without Virtue, men do not control their passions and you get chaos in society.
Homosexuality reduces all males to sexual objects for other men, which will collapse all ethics in male organizations—destroys trust.
The oppressed are the males-—and they are silenced—if they speak out like Rush or Brietbart, the MSM will destroy (or kill) them. They have to follow the communist mantra.
Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:
The organizer’s first job is to create the issues or problems, and organizations must be based on many issues. The organizer must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. . . . An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.
I would disagree with this author and say that there is oppression of women today - Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan being two of the worst examples.
What's that song again...."She said don't hand me no lines, and keep your hands to yourself!"
Well, not QUITE. Until the early 20th century, dying in childbirth was a real and regular risk. One also has to keep in mind what happened to those women without protection from “marauding” male armies.
If that becomes the preferred approach to female claims of oppression, then the war is lost.
Personally, I think the best way to deal with women who complain they're oppressed is to laugh at them.
Dying in childbirth wasn’t due to being ‘oppressed’ but a biological circumstance that was eventually alleviated by medical advances.
I laugh at them. Then I tell them: “I have it worse than you do — but you don’t hear me bitching and moaning about it!”
For many women, there is nothing that stings worse than being laughed at.
Islam doesn’t consider females to be human so it’s a moot point.
This is BS. Women didn’t have the right to vote in the US until a century and a half after men did, and with the dangers of childbirth female life expectancy was less than men’s for much of history.
You present a false dichotomy between patriarchy and men being needed. Giving women equal rights does not destroy boys.
Ouch!
...by medical advances made by men.
“Most of this narrative stems from ‘feminists’ comparing the plight of average women to the topmost men (the monarch and other aristocrats), rather than to the average man.”
Yes, and to make the fallacy a bit less obvious, they’ve invented the notion of “the patriarchy” to give impressionable people the idea that all men held some privileged status in society simply because of their sex. In reality, men throughout history have shown little to no regard for each other based on sex alone. Class and caste have always been much more determinative factors for status in society, and those cross the sex divide. An upper class woman had more rights and privileges than a lower class man, and they still do in most places, so where is this “patriarchy”?
“Until the early 20th century, dying in childbirth was a real and regular risk.”
Which is men’s fault how exactly? A natural pitfall of life isn’t “oppression”.
“One also has to keep in mind what happened to those women without protection from “marauding” male armies.”
Yes, but this wasn’t something done to women by their own society, but by the enemies of both the men and women of their society. Their men were out there fighting and dying to prevent that from happening to the women. Maybe if they had known that, instead of gratitude for their sacrifice, the fairer sex would try to blame them for it later on, they wouldn’t have bothered.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.