Women have always been privileged in human history, dontchaknow?
Once again, I have to point out the absurd perspective of MRAs, just because of how unbelievable it is
Read the posts, women are not the victims of sexism and never were. It’s all a propaganda lie. Women are and always have been the most pampered members of this and nearly every society on earth.
oh, that’s not all
Name any society in any period of history where the average man had a better life than the average woman. Quit looking at just the top tier.
All societies serve women above men. Blessed be the womb of reproduction. Might makes right, numbers make might, and women make numbers.
And the funny thing is, that this is not an uncommon sentiment among MRAs. I’ve seen the same thing repeated multiple times.
Obviously these people are pointing out to the ideas of chivalry and how the women were treated as the “protected gender” in history, without really looking one inch deeper than that. They don’t care to understand that women were protected because they were considered far weaker than men, which was also the reason why they were not allowed independence. In most of history, women were literally either slaves (to their family or husband) or outcasts if they didn’t choose this path of life.
And because women were treated as objects, as slaves, as inferior, as commodities and so on, they were protected as an object, a slave or a commodity. Protected because they weren’t considered to have enough agency or strength to protect themselves. And that protection only came as long as they accepted this marginalization, for a woman that wasn’t in her place, became the target of violence; from her father, her brothers, her husband or just strangers. And if violence wasn’t enough, she was ostracised at best, or raped/killed at worst.
Remember, slaves were protected as well, because they were a valuable commodity. But this protection only existed inasmuch as it didn’t harm the slaveholder. Were the slaves to think and act for themselves, they would be put in their place quickly and decisively by their owner or society at large. Their protection existed only as long as they were not allowed to protect themselves.
This idea that oppressed people can somehow have a “better life” than their oppressors, is a very common sentiment within reactionary ideologies, especially those who have a purely materialistic or crassly individualistic basis. So for some MRAs, women had “better life” because they were protected from external harm and didn’t have to work for their wealth. Discounting the in-family violence, the fact that they didn’t own the wealth (i.e. if they lost their husband, they were kicked to the curb) and the almost complete absence of freedom. This is similar to the argument that slaves were better than their non-slave brethren (that some slave owners actually used), because they were protected and fed, discounting again the complete loss of freedom. This is in turn very similar to capitalist rhetoric, that workers of today are better off than free farmers and artisans of the past, just because they have more luxuries available, completely discounting the freedom they miss comparatively.
There’s a reason why so many “men’s rights” are also right-libertarians and have quite a bit of intersection with “white rights” people.
In the end, almost everyone in the world can intuitively understand now at what price such protection and “better life” was provided for women and slaves. Everyone but MRAs, for whom personal freedom was apparently not important at all, compared to ephemeral wealth and shallow protection.
Name any society in any period of history where the average man had a better life than the average woman. Quit looking at just the top tier.
All societies serve women above men. Blessed be the womb of reproduction. Might makes right, numbers make might, and women make numbers.
"There’s a reason why so many “men’s rights” are also right-libertarians and have quite a bit of intersection with “white rights” people."
Men's Rights does not = Racism and fuck you for making the allusion.
I do see a correlation with Libertarianism because people being responsible for themselves is an important value to both both groups.
Are you willing to accept the corollary that Feminism is necessarily socialism?
That is the first consequence of stitching MRA with Libertarianism.
The next fall-out consequence is that since Feminism is necessarily socialism that means Feminist believe, know, and accept that they *can't* take care of themselves without coerced help from others which means coerced help from men (after-all, they require socialism.)
The only time women "had it worse" than men was during the brief period of post-industrial (post-War) times of modern homemaking machines. During this period of time women were given an ascending list of absurd tasks (e.g. iron his shirts) because they were becoming obsolete in the home. What purpose would a "housewife" serve today? It would be a lifelong vacation. Probably great for a year or two then stir-crazy boring plus endless resentment from your husband who is working for a living.
Society has never added more danger and more difficulty to women's lives than to men's. That phrasing is key. It answers the question "What does society impose" not "What difficulties do I face as a woman that a man doesn't?"
I believe that is essence of the gap between so-called Feminist and MRA's.
Such a "Feminist" wants hatchet-and-saw equality, take from men and give to women to make up for their perceived and tallied intrinsic penalty in life for being a woman which is system violence against men.
And that is how our society is arranged today so that is what the label "Feminist" means today.
If you really mean equality-based-Feminism, you need to find a new name to call yourself. Something like MRA.
You can't go to the society and eliminate the extra burden it puts on women because societies are built for a women's interest.
They already remove burdens from women and give them to men. A bedrock issue is women on the battlefield.
If you truly want equality, that means women are subject to draft to the front lines. Woman are shielded from one of the most unpleasant things possible /that is imposed by society/ – dying in War. If women want to keep that privilege of exclusion, then /shouldn't/ men get something in return for dying in their place?
It has been ruled in multiple states that woman who have committed statutory rape are still entitled to child-support payments for resultant offspring.
Flip gender roles on that. He rapes you. He gets the child. You have to pay him your living wage for it.
In order to exceed that level of brutality you have to go to slavery. You aren't a person. That's our law today for men. You aren't a person.
You do not own your future, any woman who wishes can take it from you.
This is not a "small gap" where our laws need tweaking.
Compared to women, men's lives and livelihoods are considered _disposable_ and /always have been throughout history/.
tl;dr