Shop More Submit  Join Login
×

Featured in Collections

Politics ethics religion by Mike-the-cat

Political Social Religious by amanda2324


More from deviantART



Details

Submitted on
June 10, 2012
Image Size
352 KB
Resolution
1379×619
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
4,743 (1 today)
Favourites
45 (who?)
Comments
91
Downloads
135
×
Unpopular opinions: feminism by Marsmar Unpopular opinions: feminism by Marsmar
This is probably going to be my most unpopular opinion so let me explain where I'm coming from.

Often times you'd hear feminists describe history as a patriarchy where men did everything for the benefit of other men and tried their hardest to keel women down. I for one find this claim to be incredibly inaccurate for a few different reasons.

1. Infant mortality. Pretty much any time before the 20th century, there was a very high chance that any new borns would die. Throw in the fact that Germ theory wasn't known for most of human history and medical practices were about as safe as a back alley abortion and you should get a good idea of what the 19th century and back were like.

So why is this important? Because women were largely needed to pass on the heritage. Everyone from the highest of royals to the lowest of laborers wanted to pass on their legacy.
Since keeping kids alive at that time wasn't at all easy, people needed to have more kids. Hell, that's basically the reason why Pasteur went on to discover the Germ theory, because his kids died and he wanted to know what caused it.

And why is this important? Because in those times, taking care of kids really was a full time responsibility. Think of every piece of equipment that makes lives easier. Indoor plumbing, electricity, heaters and air conditioning, the vacuum, the stove and oven, the washing machine, and the refrigerator.
All those appliances that we now have makes life easier and completes tasks faster didn't exist for most of human history so any tasks around the house that needed to be done took a lot longer and was a full time job.
If you really want to know why people wanted women to say at home, it's because they're the only people who can carry on people's legacy. Not the most glamorous idea today but it was very important in the past.

So at this point you're probably saying that society was in fact men oriented because men went to work and women stayed at home. This leads me to the second point.

2. Did woman really want to be like men

Place yourself in the shoes of a common laborer. What is your day like?
You wake up early in the morning, you spend hours and hours in work under conditions parallel to slavery because the companies consider you expendable. Perhaps your a farmer so your work long hours under the blazing sun cutting wheat for minimum pay. Looks like it's war time! Now it's your duty as a citizen to leave your home and family and risk your lives for a conflict that you might not even believe in. All of this and you share the fruits of your labor with the family.

The point is, the life for almost every man in history sucked. Sure, there was the rich and powerful who controlled everything, and that's somewhat the point of the comic. That the feminists were wrong when they said history was one gender keeping another down when it was more like one class keeping another down. Feminists complain that men were able to work but they never mention what jobs men had. They never mention the coal mines and the factories, just the fact that men had jobs. If anything, women were the most privileged gender since they weren't required to work like men did.

3. As for the last point, I want to discuss the issue with the idea that everything men did in the past was strictly for men. This idea has so many errors in it I don't even know where to begin? What did men to only for men? Was it the invention of birth control that allowed women to enjoy sex without getting pregnant? Was it making laws that state men have to give in a good percentage of their income to the wife and kid even if the wife wants to be a single mom? Or was it the law forbidding female genetical mutilations while completely ignoring male genital mutilation?
Saying that men only did things for men is an error filled absolute. You might not hear about the men in favor of woman's suffrage, but chances are you don't hear much about white people who attended the Martin Luther King Jr rally either.

Now I'm aware that there were cases where men limited what power women had such as the right to vote and getting an education, but the point is that the patriarchy feminists talk about when discussing history is vastly over exaggerated and leaves out incredibly important details. That's the point.

Finally, some of you might have read through this and said "but I support equal rights for both genders and I'm a feminist". Sure, that's fine. I couldn't call you a feminist in good conscious because though the followers of feminism can differ greatly, the ideology itself heavily implies a woman oriented favoritism. But if you do want equality between the genders, that's great. I do too. Just don't be supporting grossly inaccurate portrayals of history.

Here's an interesting video that covers this subject: [link]
Add a Comment:
 
:iconcochegara:
Cochegara Featured By Owner Edited Sep 28, 2014
Female manual labour weren't normalized before 30 December of 1922, when right to vote and getting an education were given to women by communists.
That's right, american women hauled coal and sulfur in mines and factories when soviet women were elected as members of parliament (not to mention that female peasants of whole the world ARE working so hard as you will never be able).
Reply
:icongrumpyoldrossco:
GrumpyOldRossco Featured By Owner Aug 28, 2014
Very well said mate. 
Reply
:iconbatmanwithbunnyears:
BatmanWithBunnyEars Featured By Owner Jul 8, 2014   General Artist
This comic illustrates your point very effectively. :iconthumbsupplz: It's a shame so many people won't even consider the possibility that the feminist version of history they've been taught isn't accurate.
Reply
:icondestinedtalent:
Destinedtalent Featured By Owner Jul 6, 2014
In those times women were to sit pretty and hope against hope that a man would fall for her and marry her so she could have his babies etc.

Pride and Prejudice was banned because Jane Bennett refused to marry a man. In those times if you said no to a marriage proposal you were condemning yourself to being an old maid and living off your family. If you said yes you were forcing yourself to be stuck with someone you barely knew living off them for the rest of your life.

If you were from a poor family you could become a ladies seamstress, or a nanny, or sell flowers on the streets. Although the biggest profession was prostitution, and women had NO rights, men had the say in EVERYTHING.

Later on it continued the same way women could work in sewing factories, or look after children, could be a nurse or a house keeper. Until the war era when the government needed women to work in the factories etc to help build ammunition etc for wartime. 

So... In conclussion women had it bad then, women were just as replaceable as men, more so because so many died during cildbirth, so men would remarry once their wives died.
Reply
:icongrumpyoldrossco:
GrumpyOldRossco Featured By Owner Aug 28, 2014
Until society evolved, society had a huge social investment in its survival and this required pretty rigid social roles. For the reasons the owner of the journal wrote in the introduction. 
This was a huge burden for both men and women. It was only after society had evolved that we were able to move into a position that we did not HAVE to adhere to these strict roles in society. 

Basically, it was tough on everyone. Women were not slaves of a Patriarchy. Men and women had shit options and did and chose what they could. Him lumbered with all the responsibility and welfare of a growing family and she to produce that family. 

By the way Elizabeth Bennett refused the man and Jane Bennett married Mr Bingley that proposed to her. 
Reply
:icondestinedtalent:
Destinedtalent Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2014
Yes. That's the whole point, there were shitty options for both, but the fact is that these options are only just beginning to shift for women, men still cat call women, see women as items and treat them as sex objects. Women are still being underpaid for the same jobs as men. Etc etc etc...

And I am very aware of the storyline of Pride and Prejudice. Elizabeth Bennett refused marriage twice. Firstly to mister Collins and secondly to Mr Darcy (Who she later married) which was seen as a terrible act since Mr Darcy's income was £10,000 a year and was much more than she should be worth because people could only marry into their circles.

I can't see my comment at the moment so if I put Jane Bennett it's because I wrote it at 3 am when I was tired. 
Reply
:icongrumpyoldrossco:
GrumpyOldRossco Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2014
Yes you did write Jane, but there are bigger evils in the world than making a simple mistake, I can not remember what I wrote about it (I remembered that someone had mentioned Jane Bennett not marrying after being proposed to and I could not remember anyone but Bingley proposing), but if I was being petty about it, you have my apologies. 

So I think we really need to look at this cluster of things that you seem to lump together. 

"but the fact is that these options are only just beginning to shift for women, men still cat call women, see women as items and treat them as sex objects. Women are still being underpaid for the same jobs as men. Etc etc etc..."

It is not "fact" at all is it?

It is not "beginning to shift". Women have equal rights and opportunities to men.

"men still cat call women". What? I don't and I am a man. Without any qualifier you are implying it is a male trait or being male makes you a catcaller. Let's qualify it for you "
some men still cat call women". Some men still catcall women....and? Some men will always catcall women. Some people will say racist things. Some people will not wear deodorant. Some people will push in, in line. Some people will make homophobic remarks. What does all of this prove? Not a lot does it? Simply that some people in society are rude, ignorant and not taught respect for others. Nothing to do with gender or equality or Feminism or anything else.....right? What is more feminism does nothing to address people being inherently rude, ignorant and bad-mannered, right?

"
see women as items and treat them as sex objects"...which men and which women? All men and all women? No/ OK what do you mean see women as sex objects and treat them as sex objects? You really have to define you argument a bit. If what you mean is that mean place a LOT of value in Female sexuality and/or attractiveness...then "Yeah so, what?" Another thing that is never going to change and that Feminism will not be able to do anything about. If you say men only value that sexuality and dismiss anything else about a woman....you are going to have to make a case for this as it is sounding like you are just trying to demonise men and you are stepping into sexist territory. I honestly do not know what you mean so I will not pretend to make your argument for you. 

"Women are still being underpaid for the same jobs as men" Actually this is not true. Like at all. In fact, it is really dishonest and I hope that you are just saying so because some Feminist somewhere told you that. 
There have been statistics quoted directly from the US Labor Statistics showing female in fulltime work earn on average 23c in the dollar less than males in fulltime work earn. This has been pretty static for years and years. (When I say static it sometimes is quoted as low as 70c and as high as 80c but generally 77c is what is accepted.) So anyone refuting these FACTS and quoting that men and women in the same job are earning different amounts either has not understood these statistics or is being deliberately misleading. Either way it is dishonest. 
So why the discrepancy? 
Choice. 
Men and women will choose jobs on different attributes. Women trade off greater security and safety and comfort against higher wage. Men on average do not. This is not a good or bad or indifferent thing. Men die or are injured in workplaces at 1900% the rate that women are and for very good reason. Choice. Women choose jobs that do not place them at the same risk and men will take jobs like that because of financial considerations. So, until women CHOOSE to take up the same jobs they will get the benefits of safety and comfort and such but will get lower pay for these trade offs and that is FINE. 
Womn are not underpaid and men and women in exactly the same job will get the same wage and this makes sense because not only is an employer not going to risk discrimination recriminations and the bad publicity this would get but is women were cheaper labour, they simply would not hire males. 


"which was seen as a terrible act since Mr Darcy's income was £10,000 a year and was much more than she should be worth because people could only marry into their circles." Yes, absolutely. It was a time where childhood disease and death in childbirth were very commonplace. There was no social security or pension. The only hope for society was to stick to very rigid social norms. It simply could not have survived otherwise. Men had to have all the burden of finances and obligations to the family and the women had to try to have as many children as possible and keep as many children as they could alive so that in old age the parents would have some form of support. Because of the difficulty in birthing children, the heightened chance of death and the frequency that the mothers were either pregnant, nursing children, recovering from childbirth or trying to look after their growing family, they were simply not a good option to employ or to look to support the family. Had to all go on the husband. More children may mean more hours work or more affluent son in law perhaps. 
If men had all the family obligations and the financial and legal obligations for supporting the family, what did they need in order to manage and discharge these responsibilities? RIGHTS. What did the women who did not have these financial and contractual and social obligations to the family NOT need to have? RIGHTS.

A good number of things brought about the situation in which women and men are no longer confined to these roles. 
Better child birthing practices
Better healthcare
Vaccines
Pension/Social Security
Birth Control
Better time saving devices for the home. 

I know I did not mention Feminism in this list, Feminism did not bring about the changes in society we have now. It merely sped up a process that was in process already and then took full responsibility for it once it happened. If these things were introduced wholesale to somewhere like Somalia, then regardless of whether Feminism was introduced, the changes in society to bring about equal rights and equal workplace involvement, would surely happen. Feminism though, can not simply be transposed onto that country and that is a big part of the reason why Feminists will make great protests about how terrible life is for women in third world countries but are mute on the subject bout what they are doing about it. All about "sharing the pain" without having to ACTUALLY share the pain. 
Reply
:icondimmuborgirmi:
DimmuBorgirmi Featured By Owner May 9, 2014
Too true...
Reply
:iconagentstyx:
AgentStyx Featured By Owner May 5, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Women weren't ALLOWED in those types of jobs

Also prostitution is historically one of the most dangerous jobs there are that mostly women have gone/ go into.

But you don't care right? Whatever pleases your dick.
Reply
:iconvictoria-wayne:
victoria-wayne Featured By Owner May 5, 2014
guyswhodon'tknowanythingabouthistory.jpg
Reply
Add a Comment: