Shop Mobile 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
5,145 (4 today)
Favourites
47 (who?)
Comments
92
Downloads
136
×
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
:icondestinedtalent:
Destinedtalent Featured By Owner Dec 19, 2014
When you say which men and which women? About men treating women as sex objects... You're enabling. People feel it's okay to catcall women etc because people like you say, "Oh it's only some men to some women... So what?"

www.upworthy.com/every-straigh…
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
:iconzacharytc:
ZacharyTC Featured By Owner Apr 1, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
Yeah, I don't like how history is distorted, either.
Reply
:iconladytime11:
LadyTime11 Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2013

I really hate when someone calls "your only job in life is to bear and rise a child” a privilege. it is not.

in history, there were a lot of unfair stuff.

 you say work in a coal mine sucks. I say being „forced” by society to carry, bear and raise a child, even if you don’t want to… also sucks.


It is unfair when your only value in life is not you yourself, but your child. man had value in themselves….

and the biggest difference? man was allowed to lead.  women wasn’t.  end of story.

Reply
:iconcrapcarp:
Crapcarp Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
No one's saying that bearing and raising a child is a privilege, but rather not having to work is the privilege. Another privilege women have is being able to choose when they have sex and when they bear children.

So if men want to procreate, they have to earn it by pleasing a woman first. One of the most effective ways of doing it is to work in the coal mine to earn a decent salary and prove to a woman that they can provide for her needs.

Now replace "working in a coal mine" with "leading a country" and you begin to see the true nature of gender roles. End of story.
Reply
:iconladytime11:
LadyTime11 Featured By Owner Mar 18, 2014
not having to work is the privilege. yeah it would be..problem is..that it was not a "not having to" it was a "not allowed to". and just think about it's consequences....

"So if men want to procreate, they have to earn it by pleasing a woman first.."
ehhehe..still talkin' about history? because if we do so...pleease. they force married woman and raped them...yeah.. even coal miners... about todays, it's true, good point, we not yet clone. 

Reply
:icongrumpyoldrossco:
GrumpyOldRossco Featured By Owner Aug 28, 2014
OK show how women were "forced to marry" and then "raped" by their husbands systematically. You better have pretty good sources and quantifiable data to back it.....or else I will consider it a feelings based, irrational, bullshit false threat narrative with ABSOLUTELY no basis in fact and call you a liar to boot. 

So where are the facts?
Reply
:iconladytime11:
LadyTime11 Featured By Owner Aug 30, 2014
any history book sweetie. open it at the "Ius primae noctis" or the "marriage rules" or the how 2 kingdom become one by "good marriage" or just simply anywhere, if you have one.
 
Reply
:icongrumpyoldrossco:
GrumpyOldRossco Featured By Owner Aug 30, 2014
Yes "Ius primae noctis" I saw this on Braveheart. So that was not forced marriage. IF it existed, and it may have, it may or may not have been exercised. BUT like the "droit de prélassement", right of loungingit may have existed or may not, and were it so, it was an aberration. But you were saying that the husbands forced them into marriage and then raped them. Now you are showing me how the Lord may have raped them. How do you imagine this is the same thing?

Sweetie.
Reply
:iconlordmep:
lordmep Featured By Owner Sep 19, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
My understanding is that all European countries said that their neighbors practiced this in order to make them look bad. "Oh those filthy (insert country here) are so terrible because they allow their lords to rape women." It was basically a propaganda tool.
Reply
:icongrumpyoldrossco:
GrumpyOldRossco Featured By Owner Sep 28, 2014
That is my understanding too. 
I am not saying it never happened. I am not saying it was not widespread. What I am saying is that there is a suggestion that this was simply as you say, a propaganda tool to keep the peasants in place and in fear. There is nothing to say it was anything more and we do not have anything to prove it more than this. 
Reply
:iconladytime11:
LadyTime11 Featured By Owner Aug 31, 2014
you just missed the other parts, didn't you? marriage rules, empire"unions". if the girl didn't married because of love, it was forced marriage, and if she didn't fucked his husband out of love, it was either rape, or job ( were all women sluts? )
btw..if it existed..we don't know, but we don't know either if Hitler existed or not, ...I mean did you met Him?
Reply
:icongrumpyoldrossco:
GrumpyOldRossco Featured By Owner Aug 31, 2014
OK here is something to think about. 
Mother and Father  of the bridegroom arrange a marriage for their son. Mother and Father of bride arrange marriage for the Bride. Bride and Bride Groom get married and both have sex because it is expected and neither is a choice for them but done out of adherence to the customs. 
Which part of this again was husband forcing wife to marry him and raping her? 
Which part of this was the wife forcing the husband to marry her and raping him?
What? No, they are in exactly the same position. 

As for evidence for Hitler, we have pretty good evidence for Hitler's existence don't we? Would you say we had as much evidence for Hitler existing as we have of this practice actually existing. More or less do you think? Do you think the extent of evidence is relative or not? If not then why did you bring this up? Oh, you were trying to be clever? How is that working out for you?
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconcrapcarp:
Crapcarp Featured By Owner Mar 18, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Translation: You're wrong because I say so!
Reply
:iconladytime11:
LadyTime11 Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2014
and I thought I'm the one who can't speakenglishgood.  but I was mistaken:D
Reply
:iconcrapcarp:
Crapcarp Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Oh yes, I made a literal lingual translation of English into English. Because that makes total sense. :roll:

Cut the bullshit, it ain't appreciated and it ain't gonna stick anyway.
Reply
:iconladytime11:
LadyTime11 Featured By Owner Mar 20, 2014
sorry I'm masochistic ..I so love to argue with idiots about bullshits HAHAHA
Reply
:iconcrapcarp:
Crapcarp Featured By Owner Mar 20, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
That makes no sense.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconthinker1988:
Thinker1988 Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2014

You haven't seen the picture did you?


Men were allowed to lead? How many? One in a million.


I know one or two coal miners who'd switch jobs with someone who has to take care of a child.

Reply
:iconladytime11:
LadyTime11 Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2014
one picture tells more than a hundred words so my answer:  ladytime11.deviantart.com/art/…


Reply
:iconthinker1988:
Thinker1988 Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2014
Ok, it's definitive, your senses are numb. To answer this I should repeat myself, like you are doing, like a child who repeats nonsense things they like to hear. I take it that I win and that you run out of arguments.
Reply
:iconladytime11:
LadyTime11 Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2014
ok, than I'll tell it in other worsds..I'd rather work in a coal mine than being pregnant for 9 month. ..still a lot of ppl like you treats me as a privileged, because I only have to bear a child. fucking awesome. 
Reply
:iconthinker1988:
Thinker1988 Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2014

"I'd rather work in a coal mine"


You can say it when you've tried it.


The privilege is not bearing a child, the privilege is not having to do almost anything else.

Reply
:iconladytime11:
LadyTime11 Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2014
"You can say it when you've tried it."
oh wow..so you..how did you wrote it... you know one or two coal miners who tried out pregnacy. hey everyone..we got some biological miracle here...

don't miss the "not having to" with the "not allowed to". you seem to forget about that.
Reply
:iconthinker1988:
Thinker1988 Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2014

There's no need to try pregnancy to know that it's not as tiring as working. Unless you do some triathlon during it.


Women who weren't allowed to work were mantained. It looks to me a bit like not having to.


I don't discuss that it's unjust to keep women from being independent. Only, go easy with definitions like:


women = total slaves not given anything and disprespected every chance one gets

men = all hyper privileged rich pampered sovereigns


Who thinks that most men were always rich, or that poor men had rights and an easy life, needs to see a neurologist.


Btw, pregnancy is not assigned to you by society, but by nature.

Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconmarsmar:
Marsmar Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2013
"It is unfair when your only value in life is not you yourself, but your child. man had value in themselves…."

Not really. The working men weren't considered valuable. The money gained from their labor was. If someone died on the job, that person was replaced and things continued to move on like clockwork. 

"and the biggest difference? man was allowed to lead.  women wasn’t. end of story."

Again, wrong. Only a select few people of a high class were allowed to lead. The average man had little input if any on the world around him and even less if he were in one of the lower class jobs. 
Reply
:iconladytime11:
LadyTime11 Featured By Owner Dec 25, 2013
I wasn't talking about working man and rich women. I was talking about all man and all women in general.
working man may not represented a value, but a king did. however a queen was jut a tool, not a value.

oh and yess...select few people of a high class...who were allways "accidentally" male. (with a very, very few exceptions like queen Victoria..etc, but that was rare.)
Reply
:iconmarsmar:
Marsmar Featured By Owner Dec 25, 2013
"and the biggest difference? man was allowed to lead.  women wasn’t. end of story."

And are you absolutely sure of that? 

"oh and yess...select few people of a high class...who were allways "accidentally" male. (with a very, very few exceptions like queen Victoria..etc, but that was rare.)"

Just because it was rare doesn't negate the fact. It was class that dictated power. 
Reply
:iconladytime11:
LadyTime11 Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2013
ok..there are in the first place 2 groups of people: Royal and non-royal people. No one did care about the second class. let's forget about them.

so Within the goup of Royal people, there were two other group: female and male. and with a very f*cking few exceptions, no one did care about the group 'female'. they were tools, an "object" that could prevent wars, bound families (family properties like countries, land, money) together, bear a child and raise a  child, but that was all a women was good for. in the early times of history, there were female leaders, but as the women-hater religion spread, women was banned out from leadership. a female child didn't really count as a child, because they couldn't inherit anything... their only purpose was to have a child. they were even force-married, there were brutal laws about marriage and virginity...and only a few, very powerful king was able to fight out, that their daughter could inherit the throne. mostly because they only had daughters, but they wanted to keep the throne for their blood line ...

yeah it was rare..like a black leader before the abolition of slavery... you can't say that there weren't black kings, still it would be foolish to say black people were considered to be equal...


and just to turn back to your original "statement" ..I'd like to tell a little, stupid exaple, that represents your picture.

Imagine there is a school, far, far away from the city. you 
Need car to get there. your teacher gives a car free to everyone else, but not you, and the reason why you didn't get one would be: you are too inmportant to die in a car accident. 
considering your picture, you would call it a privilege that you didn't get a car..... but is it really a privilege?

 think about it


Reply
:iconmarsmar:
Marsmar Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2013
"Imagine there is a school, far, far away from the city. you Need car to get there. your teacher gives a car free to everyone else, but not you, and the reason why you didn't get one would be: you are too inmportant to die in a car accident. "

That's a poor analogy. Imagine if there were a school that you need to take a car too. Since a car is required to get there, it would be more likely that you were given the safest car out of them all. The one that practically drives itself. That would fit the situation better. 

"so Within the goup of Royal people, there were two other group: female and male. and with a very f*cking few exceptions, no one did care about the group 'female'. they were tools, an "object" that could prevent wars, bound families (family properties like countries, land, money) together, bear a child and raise a  child, but that was all a women was good for."

All of that sounds pretty important to me. Heritage was a major thing for royal families and since men can't give birth, I think you can see how that makes females important. Because of the importance of heritage, the power to bond families would have also given females greater significance. You seem to be downplaying this as if it's nothing even though it pretty much determines who actually rules. 

"No one did care about the second class. let's forget about them."

Yes, let us ignore the big picture that history is a class war, not a gender war. Whoosh goes that elephant in the room. Whoosh away all the contrary evidence to your claims. Just like that. 

"yeah it was rare..like a black leader before the abolition of slavery.."

Hint hint, the entire history of the world isn't Europe or America. 

"think about it"

I have. Hence why I made the comic in the first place. Hence why I have gone from "Feminism is a positive thing in the modern world" to "Feminism is rather outdated. It would be better to strategically focus on the idea of outright human rights than a sex struggle so problems facing males and females could be addressed properly." 
Reply
:iconladytime11:
LadyTime11 Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2013
when I read your answer I was like: how the hell should I explain to this guy that bearing a fcking child is not a great thing to do. I don't want to, lot of women don't want to. importance of heritage is a bullshit.

you wrote:
"since men can't give birth, I think you can see how that makes females important. "
I am not important because of my baby... I Hate babies. If you think I'm only important because I can give birth..than go fck yourself, because that mentality is exactly the reason feminism is needed. 

((and by the way a girl child did not inherited land or property ( and land and property and title is what had the real walue in history.) ))


poor analogy? not..in arabic countries women are not allowed to drive, they have to ask a male to drive them...
but..if you want that analogy ok: 
you got The one that practically drives itself. but you are not allowed to program the destination, or the times you are allowed, it is supervised. .....for your safety *sarcastic lol*


class war. sure it was, but not gender war? ok lets play this way.... tell me 10 queens from the history of your country. than 10 scientist women, than 10 random leader position women..because I'm pretty sure you would be able to name 10 men from all these leader pos. jobs even without any research. 


by the way..the bond family thing..I meant, girl children was forced to marry someone to seal a deal between families, and to make them one big family one big bloodline. you see, if the king of a country gives his daughter to another country's king..if they got married, the war can be avoided.... he won't attack his wife's motherland...etc.


yeah, the problem is, males have more human rights then females....and you know what..feminism focuses on human rights, the rights that are given to one gender, but not the other one.
your problem is that working class people are replaceable? my problem is that you think women's only value is their womb. 






Reply
:iconmenollysagittaria:
MenollySagittaria Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
"I want to discuss the issue with the idea that everything men did in the past was strictly for men."

While I do agree with some of what you said, you shot yourself in the foot when you said that the point of women was to pass on men's legacy. Which is exactly what they're objecting to. If women didn't get married or want to have children, they were ostracized. Bachelor men were seen as funny or unfortunate, but not wrong.

"Was it the invention of birth control that allowed women to enjoy sex without getting pregnant?"

True, up to a point. Surprise, men like sex and don't always want to involve having children. Nowadays they go around expecting sex like handing out lollipops because they've made it so safe for women and how can they have any emotional hangups or reservations it's just sex!

"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?"

Uh, I'd say those particular laws are more for the benefit of the children than anyone else. So are children a "privileged class" that should be knocked down to size now? Again, you might have a valid point that women are more favored over men when it comes to custody and the like, and having no say in their partner's decision to keep a child or not, but you aren't expressing it very well.

Genital mutilation. Oh man, I am sick and tired of seeing this comparison. If there were "male genital mutilation" on the same scale as FGM is practiced, half or more of your penis would be hacked off. And probably a good bit of your scrotum, too. The clitoris in a lot of cases is completely removed. It, as you know, is a sort of protopenis or a penis is a differently developed clitoris, either way you wish to look at it. And labial folds, which in the womb develop from the same skin as the testicles do, are also removed. Plus, women are sewn up three quarters of the way and still have to deal with peeing and menstrual cycles. There isn't a comparison for this feature. There are absolutely no benefits to the woman, besides ensuring she doesn't have sex. (while giving her lifelong risk for infection and frequent nasty complications, especially during pregnancy. Boys' minor procedure heals quickly in comparison) Whereas the medical community is still divided over whether foreskin removal is beneficial or not.

"Bawwwww, someone cut off the tip of my finger! You lost your whole one? Well . . . still bawwwww!"
Reply
:iconimperator-zor:
Imperator-Zor Featured By Owner Jun 21, 2013
This claim is not valid, both men and women at the lower rungs of pre-modern societies were both employed for physical labor that was often quite dangerous. Before you had Mechanized Reaping machines, every hand which could use a sickle of Scythe was employed, male or female to bring the grain in. As for the Industrial era, both men and women were employed in larger number, including in downright unsafe conditions: Google "Phossy Jaw" for a good example of this.
Reply
:iconnerudan18:
Nerudan18 Featured By Owner Jun 14, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
You know something? This is probably the only thing of yours I could agree with.
Reply
:iconmarsmar:
Marsmar Featured By Owner Jun 14, 2013
Not even the anti Xbox one picture?
Reply
:iconnerudan18:
Nerudan18 Featured By Owner Jun 15, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
I'm not much of a console person, so no.
Reply
:iconmarsmar:
Marsmar Featured By Owner Jun 15, 2013
So be it then.
Reply
:iconmrs-drwho:
mrs-drwho Featured By Owner Jun 2, 2013  Student Writer
I just would like to point out a couple things. 1) When the industrial revolution first started, many factories operated on the Lowell system because women's hands were smaller so to imply only men worked in industry is false. Plus, many children were also employed again because they're smaller. You are correct about the ease of replacement because of the influx of immigrants. 2) Women not being able to join in the war effort (I'm talking combat because women were encouraged to be nurses and such and in WW2 they were able to fill more secretarial positions although there was one air force made up of women) is actually degrading to women because it implies they can't hold their own. 3) For your first argument, I can see why women would have to stay at home more (Although either sex could've done the job) but that doesn't explain why in the '50s women were still encouraged to stay home and got laid off after the war ended. I understand that the veterans needed jobs but seriously? What's so wrong about women being the primary bread winners? 4) As a feminist who knows other feminists and has read a bit on the subject, I can say with full confidence that feminism isn't about female sex favouritism but is in fact about equality for everyone and finding it by disestablishing the patriarchy and even recognises the negatives of the patriarchy to men (eg men don't get raped, can't join fashion industry without being called gay, draft (in past), etc)This is just my two cents on the subject and I respect your side entirely. Most of this argument is from my history textbook American History: A Survey.
Reply
:iconmrs-drwho:
mrs-drwho Featured By Owner Jun 2, 2013  Student Writer
Also, the American Labour Union (ALU) specifically restricted women from joining because they shouldn't be working and they'd divert jobs from men.
Reply
:iconlordmep:
lordmep Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Good god! How am I only finding this magnaficient comic now? And your description sounds like something straight out of girlwriteswhat... *scrolls down* ... Yup. You're a good guy.
Reply
Add a Comment: