And yes, I’m aware that they now have crazy privileges in the West due to 21st century feminism and exploit it at times

But men were more likely to die or get injured

>>510425026 (OP)
How were they abused? They had it no worse than men did. Stop listening to feminist propaganda, it's ahistorical nonsense.

Women have always had easier lives on average than men and it's not even up for debate.

>>510425026 (OP)
both sexes had their issues
men went to war and had to do physical labor
women had to keep a house and give birth before modern medicine
Many things we see as backwards today were put in place to protect women from unwanted birth in a time before pregnancy.

My fiance seems to think women were mega oppressed but she's also very emotional, much like all the women in my life. I don't see a ton of evidence that they were oppressed so much as simply not trusted to keep their heads in tense situations. It seems to remain true today.

>>510425026 (OP)
Witches corrupting the younger women & girls had to be dealt with

>>510425231
this mostly
whores were putting huge strain on society by fucking around and then dying during childbirth or shortly after

>>510425026 (OP)
Abused how?

>>510425026 (OP)
adam and eve.
women are abused because the enemy is trying to tear down the protective walls.

there's two (three) walls of defense
God
Man
Wife
when an enemy can't succeed with the God, he goes to man, when he can't succeed with man, he goes after the wife/woman, and if he fails there, he goes after the children.
satan wants to tear down the man, because everything else will fall beautifully after that, but he's not above going to the lowest members in the hierarchy, it will just take longer to climb up.

so women are abused for that reason, either the man was subverted and she's suffering for his failure, or he didn't give in, and she was targeted instead.

>>510425026 (OP)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum_obscurum

>>510425940
>not only you have to prove that you're a better parent, you have to prove that woman is a total trainwreck who can't take care even of herself to win custody over the child
Why are westoid governments so siding with women on this? It's weird how this law is replicated in one way or another across the western sphere, there must something way more than just "we believe women are better caretakers across the board"

>>510425026 (OP)
because they deserve it

>>510425721
Great statement, but how much longer can a man take this until finally retaliating with force? Seems to me everyone just sort of ignores this satanic humiliation, even after they decided to go after the kids.. Is it the fact that after pacifying us with television, videogames and what not, we seek comfort and as long as there is that then we sort of just lose any interest? What if everyone ends up on the street and the technocratic society will advance so much that any sort of rebelion will be futile? I think it went too far.

>>510425026 (OP)
Cuz they deserve it

GIWTWM

>>510425026 (OP)
They earn it

falsified history, women never had it worse than men

>>510426721
It's time they do

>>510426672
The dragon?

>>510425026 (OP)

because the patriarchy has always had a level of cognizance regarding the female gender and their volatility.
Anyone who isn't a simp knows just how fickle women can be. And if you asked the majority of them, they would undoubtedly tell you that they enjoy being oppressed. Though they may not admit that publicly.

>>510425026 (OP)
women weren't abused throughout history
they were and have always been coddled and protected by civilized peoples.
and its not a religious or cultural thing, its an intelligence thing. its genetic. water finds its own level. nigger-tier people produce nigger-tier women and then have to treat their women like they're nigger-tier intelligence, because they are.
anyone with intelligence knows that eugenically good women must be produced and brought up and then protected so that they are not wasted on lesser peoples.
nigger-tier people don't think like that. they are R selection peoples. harems, yo, spreadin muh seed, war brides dawg, muh dick nigga.
The offspring end up being too low intelligence to be viable mates for K selection peoples and ends up introducing nigger-tier R selection inclinations.

>>510426612
that's the neat thing.
eventually they target someone that isn't right with God, and they lash out destroying their abusers.
so evil takes out evil.

a self destroying system.

>>510425026 (OP)
christian morality.

>>510427014
you literally burned women for talking back and knowing too much lol shut up

oh no they couldn't vote, wear pants not work for the jews

>>510427078
Shut up

>>510425167
the prohibitionists were pretty butthurt about wifebeating but maybe they were just making it up

>>510425026 (OP)
So I don't buy into the idea that women were particularly physically endangered in the past in comparison to men, but I do think that there was a certain sense of hypocrisy in the views that many philosophers and educated people of the time espoused.
For example, it was often complained about (yes, complained, not just noted) that women were incredibly uneducated and unknowledgeable of the world around them.
And yet at the same time, they were generally not permitted/encouraged to be educated or travel, so you would obviously expect those things to be case.
It's like they were displeased with the state of women yet were the architects of that state, or somehow didn't see how one necessitates the other.

>>510425026 (OP)
Because they're males who are without a penis, male energy, male initiative, male creativity lower strength and intelligence, extremely narcissistic. In other words theyre useless outside of being servants.

>>510427078
jewish women aren't real humans

>>510427126
women are the nasty gender
They pretend to be sweet and loving but in reality they're just like men and ironically this pretending makes them worse. Their only saving grace is that their stature makes them unable to dish out a lot of damage but they certainly would if they could. Men at least are genuine.

>>510427027
Interesting, like a snake pit pretty much then.

>>510427078
Karens

>>510427545
Men are capable of compassion

>>510425026 (OP)
>Why were women abused so hard throughout history until recent times?
Not necessarily "abused so hard", just treated like inferior servants/house slaves. And it wasn't necessarily a harder life than that of the men. As for "why": it's because civilization is based on slavery. All the major ancient civilizations relied on slaves to maintain their households. European mud-dwellers managed to defeat the civilized slavers they had warred against but simply ended up adopting their lifestyle, which couldn't be maintained without slaves, so they made their own women into house niggers.

>>510427685
indeed, the children of satan, the great serpent, devouring each other.

>>510428039
Kinda sad thinking about it, how many lost souls were either groomed into it from the start or deceived later on thinking it was the right thing. The loss of morals that aren't even taught anymore has made a huge impact on them. Hopefully they realize how wrong it is being a part of these cults I'd say. Sadly individualism is at such a loss that they are falsely thinking being led is better than doing your own research. Some realize it is wrong though and seek validation for their degenerate acts and just want to belong to an equally deranged group of people. I hope they rather get out of it and seek repentance and forgiveness than reaching what awaits in the end.

>>510428370
most of the time they flat our reject their own salvation, and actively search out evil.
God isn't cruel, so what he allows, is for those that wanted nothing to do with him to be without him completely.

a terrifying thought, to be honest, that's why i try to remind myself to not stray too much.

>>510427078
Behold, a redditor
Go fetch us a source and work from there

>>510425026 (OP)
I all honesty I don't really think they were

>>510425026 (OP)
everyone has always been abused, being born as a peasant is abusive, having your lord seize your land is abusive, having your brother kill you so he can be king is abusive

>>510425026 (OP)
>Medieval dragon vore fetishist in OP's pic

Lmao, history never changes.

>>510425026 (OP)
Having a beautiful woman that you marry and she turns fat and ugly, that is extremely abusive. I feel abused.

>>510426131
Why are all zionist occupied governments the same?

>>510428543
Nobody's perfect, you mourn for your actions but others sin without even realizing it, nor caring. As long as you try fixing it and help others who are willing but lost to reach the same, you shouldn't be worried. God gave us free will as a challenge to either choose the right path controlling our senses, or stooping to a level of animals being a slave to them. Our souls were given a human body as a blessing to use our brain to gain knowledge about Him, yet many rather waste the opportunity in sensory pleasures such as illicit sex, drugs and material enjoyment. We have been reduced to a level of cats and dogs.

>>510428704
>everyone has always been abused, being born as a peasant is abusive
>has always been
The Anglo can only think as far back as peasants. Any further and he would have to admit that the "Bill of Rights" is actually the "Bill of Human Cattle" attained by slaves pleading with their masters, which was chosen over the alternative of actual freedom.

>>510427161
But that's besides the point. Whatever fucked up things happened in the past, men bore the brunt of it. You think men weren't getting assaulted all the time back then, before cameras and radios and police cars? Feminism, by its nature of being about female supremacy, will zero in any feminine aspect of history and magnify it, but contextually, it's never as bad as what men of the same age and culture had to endure.

>>510427078
By you you mean christojewish church. Roman beat women to death for degeneracy on the other hand

Bullshit, they have always enjoyed the protection of men.

>>510428806
c'est la vie, anon, and since life goes on, all we can do is the same.

>>510425026 (OP)
Because look at the result of what giving them too many privileges has brought us, and I'm not even talking about their insane standards, they actually exert control. A woman cannot even control her feelings, how the fuck can they control anything else.

>I did something cause I feel
>I feel this way, so I'm going to behave like this and make your life more difficult

Its like this all the time, society was better when men where sole breadwinners and women stayed home and shut the fuck up

>>510425026 (OP)
They've always socially been on average the privileged sex because nature gives them more social value. Their worst liability was potential to die in childbirth.

>>510427213
Men learned on their own, he'll, nigger slaves did that, women never showed interest in anything until it became trendy, then invented a false history where their lack of participation was not due to their naature but oppression. Women didn't philosophize because of oppression, women didn't do science because of oppression, women didn't play video games because of oppression

>>510427979
I once sat in central party district in Hong Kong with an old homeless beggar woman. It was on a flight of stairs to a bunch of clubs. I counted over 10 men, Hong kongese and foreign, white, black, stop and give her something. Not a single whore took out money or asked her guy to give some money. That's female nature. A fuck boy has more compassion than a whore

>>510428865
Yes, may He bless you, friend.

>>510427161
They're women. Of course they were making it up.

>>510425026 (OP)
Wait until you find out that they like being abused

>>510428992
Let's not pretend that violence hasn't always the most important force in history, it still is, but simply more abstracted than at any other point in time, and biologically women cannot participate in violence to the same extent, that is undeniably true.
What you're suggesting is that women never had any natural inclination to intellectual matters, but if that were truly the case, why was it necessary to enforce that "nature" through laws, culture, religion and institutions?
The history of people who showed interest and thrived in intellectual matters is one of men in safe societies, robust institutions and those matters being culturally encouraged, the great minds of the past did not merely pop into existence in spite of everything.
Basically I dispute the notion of
>Men learned on their own
in its entirety, no man learns alone.

>>510429589
Because psychopaths share some of female nature, particularly narcissism and they want men to behave like females as that makes them easier to control.
>you didn't build that
I didn't say single created societies. I said a man can randomly start pursuing science, females never do that. Safe societies didn't come about on their own, there had to be some thinking men present before.

>>510429589
Because look at what happened to universities after women started going to them. If they were interested in learning then they wouldn't have made degrees worthless by demanding that the entire system be dumbed down so they could get one without putting in any effort.

>>510429723
>Because psychopaths share some of female nature, particularly narcissism and they want men to behave like females as that makes them easier to control.
I fail to see how that's an answer to not letting women participate in education? I can't see a connection at all, I feel like you're answering a different question that wasn't asked.
> I said a man can randomly start pursuing science
They could do that because there was already a robust cultural history of men already pursuing science, the origins of which did not allow female participation.
>females never do that.
They do now that it's allowed, calling it trend chasing is a poor, hand-wavy explanation.
>Safe societies didn't come about on their own
I agree, they had to be born and moulded through controlled violence, something women will never be equal to men in.

>>510428819
>when you make a light hearted post and a who nationality starts seething at you for being an anglo, which might not even be true anyway
What do you want me to say, I have no comeback because I know nothing about moldova

>>510428838
no, that was exactly the point, that wifebeating happened and continues to happen. This thread isn't about a suffering olympics or male suffering at all. OP asked a very simple question, why did A do X until recently, and you're getting hung up on "but B suffered too!!!!"
everyone over the age of 0 knows men suffer. This thread is about the decline of slapping a ho

>>510430110
>What do you want me to say
I want you to say you're sorry for implying that everyone has always been a bunch of subjugated human cattle just because your race can't conceive of any other state of affairs.

>>510425167
umm, like the witch burnings and they couldn't vote for like 2000 years
they also had to get married like the men and didn't get to spend money on shopping, high-tea and festivals
did you ever have to take care of children? it's literal abuse, too, mam

>>510430242
I'm sorry that eastern euros still have a 19th century concept of race

>>510430029
Yeah I misread you, still >>510429850 pretty much answers your question. To females university degree is merely a way to progress on social ladder which cheapens and distracts from the real purpose.

And who invented the scientific system? Men. Men who just sat on their ass and started philosophizing. Women never do that. The system didn't come from nothing in one day.

Calling it trend chasing is an accurate statement, and they add nothing to it, in fact modern academia is a joke filled with feelings and illogical propaganda. You've never been to university with females or you're not very bright, cause else you'd know.

>>510430374
>witch burnings
Men burned too, and guess what, they burned for science, not because other jealous females accused them for no reason like with women. You clearly don't know the subject well.

Most men couldn't vote either and that was a good thing for the society. What a fucking bluepilled mindset tou have zoomie

>>510430490
I'm sorry that Western golems still cling to the globohomo concept of race.

>>510430221
No, he said why were women abused "SO HARD," implying that they suffered more abuse than men. They did not. I made that clear. There is nothing to debate here, it's simply a fact of history.
>>510430374
Men were killed in witch hunts too, and you're just, in typical female fashion, isolating a single type of religious persecution that is pre-selected for this bias as if men didn't by and large suffer religious persecutions more than women. They did. They were slaughtered for it by the millions. But because a few hundred women were burned as witches -- which was just a heresy crime -- that somehow means they were abused "so hard"? Compared to what? Certainly not men. As for voting, I won't even address that by dignifying democracy as anything more than pure poison that should be eradicated, except to say than in most places for most of history men couldn't vote either. And what has your precious vote gotten you? Nothing of value.

>>510425026 (OP)
Because they are dumb and destroy men under the influence of Satan.

>>510430640
The idea that the education system was dumbed down to accommodate women does not seem to pan out with any research on the subject I've done, especially considering on average men struggle more in the system than women. Fundamentally the way the education system works today is not all that different from how it worked 100 years ago, the bones of the structure are the same.
If you have an example of some part of the curriculum being changed because women could not learn at the same pace I'd like to see it.
Also, when it comes to scientific output, the countries that have more female participation in tertiary education also have the best results, inversely the ones with the least female participation have the worst.
If it were the case that female participation in the education system inherently downgraded the overall aptitude of the institutions in their entirety, wouldn't one expect to see the opposite? A country with high male education, low female education, and high academic success?

>>510430827
you said race dumb nigger

>>510430844
he's asking why was the wifebeating more prevalent in the past, it's not a comparison to men. OP didn't even mention men, he's asking about the decline in domestic violence

>>510431324
Oh. Kek. I misinterpreted your leftist vomit for an accusation that my "19th century" concept of race hasn't caught up with whatever "cutting edge" """racial realism""" take is being shilled this week.

>>510425026 (OP)
You think we're the only time period to experience women at their worst? No, historical treatment of women is based on both tradition but also just ancestral memory of how horrible they are when they aren't under your boot. A woman outside of a man's protection is like a spoiled child, only equipped with adult intelligence,experience, and deviousness.

>>510431450
No, he wasn't, he just said "abused" which could mean anything. And there's no reason to use the qualifier "so hard" if it's not inherently comparative. So hard compared to WHAT? Dogs? Chickens? Popes? Maybe if you weren't so chronically disingenuous, feminism wouldn't be on its back foot right now.

>>510431575
so hard compared to modern times
"why were women abused so much harder in the past." Pretty sure OP is talking about wifebeating and not verbal abuse. I think we're all on the same page about what abuse means, it's the women trying to expand the definition of "abuse" to include shit like not answering the phone. For everyone else abuse means beatings

>>510431839
This is ridiculous. The temporal part is already included in "until recent times" so there'd be no point for "so hard" unless it was comparative to another group, not time unless the sentence is redundant, which, coupled with stupid confusion that "abuse" is causing you, makes the sentence almost completely worthless to begin with -- the fate of all feminist laments. And I do not accept your absurd definition of abuse. Abuse can mean any number of things, not just beatings, it can include any injustice.

>>510431115
>academia is the same as ever according to my research
That's why we spent an entire course whining how females have it bad and them getting angry when any actual solution was offered because it wasn't sex and the city fantasy. Dude you have zero clue what you're talking about
>white countries that inherited and academia juggernaught are doing better than shitskin countries that just 100 years ago lived in middle ages
all you can do is regurgitate feminist propaganda. You evidence? Check the number of inventions per capita, the number peaked in late 19th century, before democracy and women being let into universities

>>510425026 (OP)
They were eaten by dragons?

>>510425194
This, women are uppity useless gibsniggers and I hate them.

everyone used to live in harmony until blindingly glowing butch dykes had to make sure women must (((vote)))
and then participate in being another golem

>>510431115
the education system was warped to create perfect golems male and female
there were plenty of chicks going to school before 2000 when they started to ((complain)) about female workplace representation like the communists they are
that's all it is, 5 year plans and communism to annihilate men as heads of household because a household poses a threat to tax harvesting

>>510425026 (OP)
They weren't, weren't. Imagine believing feminist propaganda. Women, along with children and the elderly, were always the privileged and protected class, which is why they weren't allowed work outside like slaves and die in wars. Everything men did was to protect their women and children. They got to live like queens at home in exchange for doing household chores and taking care of children, while the men were doing all the dangerous jobs, wearing their bodies out, and dying in senseless wars over the whims of rulers and psychotic warlords.

>>510432430
>That's why we spent an entire course whining how females have it bad and them getting angry when any actual solution was offered because it wasn't sex and the city fantasy. Dude you have zero clue what you're talking about
I have zero clue what you, specifically are talking about. You did not address my points.
>white countries that inherited and academia juggernaught are doing better than shitskin countries that just 100 years ago lived in middle ages
I'm not asking you to compare whites to any other race, you can simply make a comparison between whites if you wish. Any example at all would do.
>Check the number of inventions per capita, the number peaked in late 19th century
There's no list of inventions where the rate of progress peaks in the 19th century, the idea that you think there were more inventions in the 19th century than the 20th century tells me you are incredibly historically ignorant to an almost comical degree, I can't even fathom how such a misconception could come to be a belief of yours.
Genuinely, the only explanation I can come up with is that you've confused the 19th century for the 20th century.

>>510425026 (OP)
They weren't, retard. Imagine falling for feminist propaganda. Women, along with children and the elderly, were always the privileged and protected class, which is why they weren't allowed work outside like slaves and die in wars. Everything men did was to protect their women and children. They got to live like queens at home in exchange for doing household chores and taking care of children, while the men were doing all the dangerous jobs, wearing their bodies out, and dying in senseless wars over the whims of rulers and psychotic warlords.

>>510432869
>give an example of females in academia
>hurr durr I don't get it because it refutes my point
>doont compare whites, compare western europe to eastern europe that was fucked by half a century of communism
>there's no list proving per capita inventions were higher in the 19th century
There is, calling me comically ignorant just comically proves your own ignorance, you presented no argument this entire thread

>>510425026 (OP)

>>510433344
>give an example of females in academia
You presented a non sequitur, I asked for evidence of education being dumbed down in favour of women, your example was a seminar on what I can only assume was gender histories, not really relevant unless you can draw a direct connection between that and worsening academic performance.
> compare western europe to eastern europe that was fucked by half a century of communism
Again, ANY example will do.
With that said, eastern education is not poor at all.
>There is
There is not, because any research on the subject would tell you that there were exponentially more inventions in the 20th century than the 19th century.
IF your argument is that the 19th century had more impactful inventions, maybe you'd have an argument, it'd at least be debatable, but that's not what you said, and I'm the one having to steelman your own misguided argument.
Just a meagre look at what major inventions happened in the 19th century and the 20th century would have any list in the 20th be considerably longer.