If foids never historically held power and were as universally subordinate to men as feminists and soys claim them to have been...

[The Notorious SLAV]

Why did every peasant rebellion in medieval Europe target nobles in general, rather than just noblemen? Same with slave rebellions. Ditto when a new dynasty/clan had usurped some territory or a position, and to make sure they'll retain a hold of it, they would target and/or imprison all the immediate family members of the previous owner, regardless of age or gender?

You don't target those who pose no possible threat to you. According to the mainstream misandrist interpretation of history, women were effectively second-class citizens who were limited in, if not expelled from, any access to wealth, influence and power to such an extent that they effectively might as well have all been below even the lowest male serf when it came to power hierarchies and possibilities to climb them. For an example of this thinking, a month or so ago in an anthology book I've been reading, there was a feminist story set in some time before WWI, where there were comical scenes like the mandatory abused teenage bride starting to cry hysterically after being told that she gave birth to a daughter, because she "Knew that she had brought another life that will only be abused and never hold any power."

Yet, if anything, whenever violence had historically gotten political and based on who held power, that is when gender had become irrelevant and foids were targeted as well. We have ample evidence of them commonly not being targeted in cases of interpersonal violence where often nobody involved held any serious power and where power over people wasn't one of the causes, such as blood feuds between families and in street crime. Both of those are the case now as well, anyone who doubts that can go look at how quickly any and all foids in a group become completely irrelevant to everyone once a street fight between two groups breaks out. That obviously makes sense, since, as I've said, you don't target those who pose no threat to you, and, although I'm the type of a guy to always point out that foids are responsible for much more violence than people think, it's true that their ability to cause physical violence isn't up to par with men's on average.

Which only makes it that much more jarring that they very much were targeted whenever a lower-status group had rebelled against a higher-status one. Obviously, likely not as much as men have, they never are because men are hardwired to protect foids and in any situation where foid casualties can be minimized by male ones being maximalized, they will be, but in those political types of conflict they were much more often targeted along with men than in irrelevant, interpersonal blood feuds and street crime, both of which were men-only, mostly young men against other mostly young men things for as long as we have records of them.

While historians and feminists wax lyrical about the supposed pitiful state of women for most of history, kept in metaphorical, if not real cages, with even the most privileged of them being just "privileged puppets" with no power over their own lives and bound to a live of abuse and servitude comparable to those of other oppressed groups in society, the people actually living in those times don't seem to have ever seen it that way. No peasant rebellion has ever decided to not target noblewomen because they were "equally oppressed" as them or whatever, they just went to smash their heads in just like they did to their husbands, brothers and sons. No slave rebellion has ever done that either. When a powerful noble house had decided to wipe out another powerful noble house, the women of the latter were never, or only rarely, shown any mercy (this being the only type of blood feuds where women were targeted at scale).


View: https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/12o3qag/are_there_any_historical_examples_of_noble_houses/


You'd think if those "privileged puppets" were as powerless in their own right as constantly described by misandrist historians, both right-wing and left-wing, political violence would be completely androcidal, since it would make no sense for it to be anything else than a gendercide targeting men alone. You'd expect history to be littered with stories of noblewomen and other privileged women surviving peasant and slave rebellions, upper-class infighting, ethnic cleansings and successful revolutions unharmed, because they themselves would've had no power which they could've continued using against the downtrodden, yet that has never happened. Instead, this type of conflict is the least gendercidal one of all, with it being the irrelevant, random killings on the street that almost solely targeted males, which they do even now.

Just look at the ethnic cleansings in the 20th century. After WWII ended and most of CEE decided to kick the Germans out, the German foids weren't exempted. Neither were Polish foids when Banderites started massacring Poles. Or we can go a couple of centuries back, and see how indiscriminate the German peasants were during the Peasants' War in 16th century. Or well over a millenium back to one of the things that really got me thinking over this. A lot is made of how unique Wu Zetian was to be the only reigning Empress in Chinese history, and how ruthless she was to get there, but funnily enough, considering how suppposedly impossible the mere thought of a woman attaining a powerful position would've been for anyone else, she herself didn't seem to think so, if the ruthlessness with which she dealt with the female members of the imperial family's rival lines is any indication. Not how someone deals with people who don't pose any threat to them, I'd say.

For how key to people's lives and opportunities gender supposedly was for most of history, it had a remarkable ability to become irrelevant whenever any other power differential (class, status, race/ethnicity) was introduced, and in the end, people's actual actions exposed what their world was truly like.

 

[GeckoBus]

Why did every peasant rebellion in medieval Europe target nobles in general, rather than just noblemen? Same with slave rebellions. Ditto when a new dynasty/clan had usurped some territory or a position, and to make sure they'll retain a hold of it, they would target and/or imprison all the immediate family members of the previous owner, regardless of age or gender?

You don't target those who pose no possible threat to you. According to the mainstream misandrist interpretation of history, women were effectively second-class citizens who were limited in, if not expelled from, any access to wealth, influence and power to such an extent that they effectively might as well have all been below even the lowest male serf when it came to power hierarchies and possibilities to climb them. For an example of this thinking, a month or so ago in an anthology book I've been reading, there was a feminist story set in some time before WWI, where there were comical scenes like the mandatory abused teenage bride starting to cry hysterically after being told that she gave birth to a daughter, because she "Knew that she had brought another life that will only be abused and never hold any power."

Yet, if anything, whenever violence had historically gotten political and based on who held power, that is when gender had become irrelevant and foids were targeted as well. We have ample evidence of them commonly not being targeted in cases of interpersonal violence where often nobody involved held any serious power and where power over people wasn't one of the causes, such as blood feuds between families and in street crime. Both of those are the case now as well, anyone who doubts that can go look at how quickly any and all foids in a group become completely irrelevant to everyone once a street fight between two groups breaks out. That obviously makes sense, since, as I've said, you don't target those who pose no threat to you, and, although I'm the type of a guy to always point out that foids are responsible for much more violence than people think, it's true that their ability to cause physical violence isn't up to par with men's on average.

Which only makes it that much more jarring that they very much were targeted whenever a lower-status group had rebelled against a higher-status one. Obviously, likely not as much as men have, they never are because men are hardwired to protect foids and in any situation where foid casualties can be minimized by male ones being maximalized, they will be, but in those political types of conflict they were much more often targeted along with men than in irrelevant, interpersonal blood feuds and street crime, both of which were men-only, mostly young men against other mostly young men things for as long as we have records of them.

While historians and feminists wax lyrical about the supposed pitiful state of women for most of history, kept in metaphorical, if not real cages, with even the most privileged of them being just "privileged puppets" with no power over their own lives and bound to a live of abuse and servitude comparable to those of other oppressed groups in society, the people actually living in those times don't seem to have ever seen it that way. No peasant rebellion has ever decided to not target noblewomen because they were "equally oppressed" as them or whatever, they just went to smash their heads in just like they did to their husbands, brothers and sons. No slave rebellion has ever done that either. When a powerful noble house had decided to wipe out another powerful noble house, the women of the latter were never, or only rarely, shown any mercy (this being the only type of blood feuds where women were targeted at scale).


View: https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/12o3qag/are_there_any_historical_examples_of_noble_houses/


You'd think if those "privileged puppets" were as powerless in their own right as constantly described by misandrist historians, both right-wing and left-wing, political violence would be completely androcidal, since it would make no sense for it to be anything else than a gendercide targeting men alone. You'd expect history to be littered with stories of noblewomen and other privileged women surviving peasant and slave rebellions, upper-class infighting, ethnic cleansings and successful revolutions unharmed, because they themselves would've had no power which they could've continued using against the downtrodden, yet that has never happened. Instead, this type of conflict is the lest gendercidal one of all, with it being the irrelevant, random killings on the street that almost solely targeted males, which they do even now.

Just look at the ethnic cleansings in the 20th century. After WWII ended and most of CEE decided to kick the Germans out, the German foids weren't exempted. Neither were Polish foids when Banderites started massacring Poles. Or we can go a couple of centuries back, and see how indiscriminate the German peasants were during the Peasants' War in 16th century. Or well over a millenium back to one of the things that really got me thinking over this. A lot is made of how unique Wu Zetian was to be the only reigning Empress in Chinese history, and how ruthless she was to get there, but funnily enough, considering how suppposedly impossible the mere thought of a woman attaining a powerful position would've been for anyone else, she herself didn't seem to think so, if the ruthlessness with which she dealt with the female members of the imperial family's rival lines is any indication. Not how someone deals with people who don't pose any threat to them, I'd say.

For how key to people's lives and opportunities gender supposedly was for most of history, it had a remarkable ability to become irrelevant whenever any other power differential (class, status, race/ethnicity) was introduced, and in the end, people's actual actions exposed what their world was truly like.

its just the usual BS. If the men were killed and women survived, where would the assets and land go if women werent allowed to inherit? Did they just return to nature? Also a woman can easily give birth to a male heir, which then becomes a threat extremely quickly. There are many kings in history that started leading armies in their teens, so within 10-15 years you would have some fucknigga take revenge for shit you did to his father and brothers decades ago. The whole female oppression narrative is so weak.

Another thing I recently thought about is age of first birth. Many here still think, and I used to be guilty too, that they just rape creampied girls the moment they had their first period. As it turns out the average age of first child historically is like 25. Yes. Not 14, 15, 16, 18 - 25. Sometimes it was a bit lower, sometimes older, but not anywhere near 12-15. It was much closer to modern standards. The age of first child was basically the same until the 1960s when the pill was invented. Nowadays I would guess the age hasnt changed but people just abort the child (40-50% of pregnancies are unwanted accidents even in 1st world) or the child gets spawn camped by contraceptives. So technically it hasnt changed.

‘Medieval women had their first child much later than previously thought’ - Leiden University

Costume dramas would have us believe that women in the Middle Ages became mothers at a much younger age than they do today. University lecturer Krista Milne wants to refute this image with the help of an NWO XS grant. ‘In the past, not all data was taken into account.’

www.student.universiteitleiden.nl

We also have to always ask yourself, how tf would you even determine that. For medieval times in europe you can easily imagine good data sets, because churches kept birth and death records etc. But for romans and ancient greeks were 90% of society were basically human trash that couldnt read or write - how would we know? Here we get again outlandish claims like, the girls were married of at 13 and immediatly impregnated. But other research shows roman doctors openly advocating against that + the actual age for average people being closer to 20+ for marriage, with first child obviously coming in even later, somewhere between 21 and 25.

For her, it was a reason to take another close look at the data used. ‘It turned out the scholar who suggested this average maternal age only looked at women under the age of thirty. When you include all the women over the age of thirty, you find the average age is around 23 or 23.5.’

That is still younger than the 30.4 years at which Dutch women became mothers for the first time in 2024, but it differs remarkably little from the 24.3 years in 1969, the last year that the contraceptive pill was only available on prescription.

According to the study, the average age that humans had children throughout the past 250,000 years is 26.9.

Fathers were consistently older, at 30.7 years on average, whereas mothers were 23.2 years on average.

Average age of conception throughout human history

Determining the average age of conception throughout human history to discover more about humans, then and in the future

www.openaccessgovernment.org

Roman doctors like Soranus of Ephesus (2nd century AD, whose Gynecology was the standard text) explicitly advised against very early consummation or pregnancy. He recommended waiting for full physical maturity, menarche, and bodily readiness—girls should be "physically mature enough to sustain intercourse... and bear a child" before marriage. He warned against rushing it.

No huge caches of birth records survive, so first birth is inferred from marriage age + medical/practical realities. Childbearing usually started soon after marriage, but not always instantly.
In Roman Egypt (the only place with decent papyrus data), marital fertility rates ramp up in the late teens/20s, consistent with later marriage.

There was never oppression and systematic breeding of women, like women fantasize about in shit like handmaidens tale. It has never existed. Let's not forget that breeding, pregnancy and sex are not governed by laws, in fact laws could not even govern these. So why would people act different now than 2000 years ago.

Oh, just thought of this:

Notice how teen is in top 3 for both genders. So could the narrative of 12 year old girls being impregnated by 30 year old dudes in the past just be projection by both genders? It's basically the ugly bastard fetish overlaid onto history.

 

[GeckoBus]

found this in video randomly. 1970s woman interviews woman born in victorian era and asks "you were seen as a lower form of life, werent you?" and the old woman flat out says, idk, didnt feel like we were ("I didnt notice, but it may well be true"). Then the interviewer keeps pressing and asking if she felt oppressed by men and the old hag just goes no, no lmao. Great find, it starts at 3:45 in video:


View: https://youtu.be/lYv1rjBEJ1Y?t=218

 

[Lonly ghost]

Women were never oppressed. Misogyny never existed.

Women being oppressed is a feminist lie.

Feminists are very successful in spreading lies , misinformation and hatred against men, that's why most people think " men bad , women good " and " men oppressors, women oppressed ".

 

[liria]

Women were never oppressed. Misogyny never existed.

Women being oppressed is a feminist lie.

Feminists are very successful in spreading lies , misinformation and hatred against men, that's why most people think " men bad , women good " and " men oppressors, women oppressed ".

Water is wet

 

[fokusin]

Women were never oppressed. Misogyny never existed.

Women being oppressed is a feminist lie.

Feminists are very successful in spreading lies , misinformation and hatred against men, that's why most people think " men bad , women good " and " men oppressors, women oppressed ".

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

Why did every peasant rebellion in medieval Europe target nobles in general, rather than just noblemen? Same with slave rebellions. Ditto when a new dynasty/clan had usurped some territory or a position, and to make sure they'll retain a hold of it, they would target and/or imprison all the immediate family members of the previous owner, regardless of age or gender?

You don't target those who pose no possible threat to you. According to the mainstream misandrist interpretation of history, women were effectively second-class citizens who were limited in, if not expelled from, any access to wealth, influence and power to such an extent that they effectively might as well have all been below even the lowest male serf when it came to power hierarchies and possibilities to climb them. For an example of this thinking, a month or so ago in an anthology book I've been reading, there was a feminist story set in some time before WWI, where there were comical scenes like the mandatory abused teenage bride starting to cry hysterically after being told that she gave birth to a daughter, because she "Knew that she had brought another life that will only be abused and never hold any power."

Yet, if anything, whenever violence had historically gotten political and based on who held power, that is when gender had become irrelevant and foids were targeted as well. We have ample evidence of them commonly not being targeted in cases of interpersonal violence where often nobody involved held any serious power and where power over people wasn't one of the causes, such as blood feuds between families and in street crime. Both of those are the case now as well, anyone who doubts that can go look at how quickly any and all foids in a group become completely irrelevant to everyone once a street fight between two groups breaks out. That obviously makes sense, since, as I've said, you don't target those who pose no threat to you, and, although I'm the type of a guy to always point out that foids are responsible for much more violence than people think, it's true that their ability to cause physical violence isn't up to par with men's on average.

Which only makes it that much more jarring that they very much were targeted whenever a lower-status group had rebelled against a higher-status one. Obviously, likely not as much as men have, they never are because men are hardwired to protect foids and in any situation where foid casualties can be minimized by male ones being maximalized, they will be, but in those political types of conflict they were much more often targeted along with men than in irrelevant, interpersonal blood feuds and street crime, both of which were men-only, mostly young men against other mostly young men things for as long as we have records of them.

While historians and feminists wax lyrical about the supposed pitiful state of women for most of history, kept in metaphorical, if not real cages, with even the most privileged of them being just "privileged puppets" with no power over their own lives and bound to a live of abuse and servitude comparable to those of other oppressed groups in society, the people actually living in those times don't seem to have ever seen it that way. No peasant rebellion has ever decided to not target noblewomen because they were "equally oppressed" as them or whatever, they just went to smash their heads in just like they did to their husbands, brothers and sons. No slave rebellion has ever done that either. When a powerful noble house had decided to wipe out another powerful noble house, the women of the latter were never, or only rarely, shown any mercy (this being the only type of blood feuds where women were targeted at scale).


View: https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/12o3qag/are_there_any_historical_examples_of_noble_houses/


You'd think if those "privileged puppets" were as powerless in their own right as constantly described by misandrist historians, both right-wing and left-wing, political violence would be completely androcidal, since it would make no sense for it to be anything else than a gendercide targeting men alone. You'd expect history to be littered with stories of noblewomen and other privileged women surviving peasant and slave rebellions, upper-class infighting, ethnic cleansings and successful revolutions unharmed, because they themselves would've had no power which they could've continued using against the downtrodden, yet that has never happened. Instead, this type of conflict is the least gendercidal one of all, with it being the irrelevant, random killings on the street that almost solely targeted males, which they do even now.

Just look at the ethnic cleansings in the 20th century. After WWII ended and most of CEE decided to kick the Germans out, the German foids weren't exempted. Neither were Polish foids when Banderites started massacring Poles. Or we can go a couple of centuries back, and see how indiscriminate the German peasants were during the Peasants' War in 16th century. Or well over a millenium back to one of the things that really got me thinking over this. A lot is made of how unique Wu Zetian was to be the only reigning Empress in Chinese history, and how ruthless she was to get there, but funnily enough, considering how suppposedly impossible the mere thought of a woman attaining a powerful position would've been for anyone else, she herself didn't seem to think so, if the ruthlessness with which she dealt with the female members of the imperial family's rival lines is any indication. Not how someone deals with people who don't pose any threat to them, I'd say.

For how key to people's lives and opportunities gender supposedly was for most of history, it had a remarkable ability to become irrelevant whenever any other power differential (class, status, race/ethnicity) was introduced, and in the end, people's actual actions exposed what their world was truly like.

In the Russian Empire, it was the same. The most sadistic landowner in Russian history was a woman who killed hundreds of serfs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darya_Nikolayevna_Saltykova
Nicholas II's wife was much more cruel in her vision than Nicholas II, who always became paralyzed in the face of difficult choices and preferred to do nothing. In a letter to Nicholas II in February 1917, his wife (Alexandra Fedorovna) wrote.
"My dear, be firm and show your authority. That's what the Russians need. They ask for it themselves—how many have recently told me, "We need a whip." It's strange, but that's the Slavic nature—the greatest firmness, even cruelty, and yet a passionate love. I know all too well how the roaring crowds behave when you're nearby. They're still afraid of you. They should be even more afraid, so that wherever you are, they'll feel the same shiver. Farewell, my love, and return to your old Sun."
In other words, Nicholas II's wife literally asks him to kill the protesters in St. Petersburg because people have been rallying due to food shortages in the city.
It is also worth noting that Catherine II (also known as the Great Catherine) allowed her lover's brother to kill her ex-husband. She also turned the lives of 90% of the population, which consisted of peasants, into a living hell. Peasants were forbidden to complain about their landlords, and they were allowed to be sold like possessions, lost in card games, and so on. Landlords had the power to send peasants they disliked to Siberia without a trial. In other words, a woman in power caused the suffering of tens of millions of people, reducing them to the status of a furniture.

 

[Pikacel]

Women were never oppressed. Misogyny never existed.

Women being oppressed is a feminist lie.

Feminists are very successful in spreading lies , misinformation and hatred against men, that's why most people think " men bad , women good " and " men oppressors, women oppressed ".

 

[The Notorious SLAV]

Another thing I recently thought about is age of first birth. Many here still think, and I used to be guilty too, that they just rape creampied girls the moment they had their first period. As it turns out the average age of first child historically is like 25. Yes. Not 14, 15, 16, 18 - 25. Sometimes it was a bit lower, sometimes older, but not anywhere near 12-15. It was much closer to modern standards. The age of first child was basically the same until the 1960s when the pill was invented. Nowadays I would guess the age hasnt changed but people just abort the child (40-50% of pregnancies are unwanted accidents even in 1st world) or the child gets spawn camped by contraceptives. So technically it hasnt changed.

‘Medieval women had their first child much later than previously thought’ - Leiden University

Costume dramas would have us believe that women in the Middle Ages became mothers at a much younger age than they do today. University lecturer Krista Milne wants to refute this image with the help of an NWO XS grant. ‘In the past, not all data was taken into account.’

www.student.universiteitleiden.nl

Saved, very interesting.

The past is so different to the fetishized and politicized version of it we are constantly fed man.

Notice how teen is in top 3 for both genders. So could the narrative of 12 year old girls being impregnated by 30 year old dudes in the past just be projection by both genders? It's basically the ugly bastard fetish overlaid onto history.

ABSOLUTELY.

found this in video randomly. 1970s woman interviews woman born in victorian era and asks "you were seen as a lower form of life, werent you?" and the old woman flat out says, idk, didnt feel like we were ("I didnt notice, but it may well be true"). Then the interviewer keeps pressing and asking if she felt oppressed by men and the old hag just goes no, no lmao. Great find, it starts at 3:45 in video:


View: https://youtu.be/lYv1rjBEJ1Y?t=218

View attachment 1716474

Great find indeed, the interviewer was trying so hard to get her to agree.

 

[yeetbender_]

I FULLY ENDORSE EVERYTHING THAT THESE MASS SHOOTERS DO (IN REAL LIFE): YOU ALL FULLY DESERVE IT (IN REAL LIFE).



PLACES LIKE THIS VIDEO AND ITS CHANNEL ARE SUPPOSED TO BE OUR REFUGE:

View: https://youtu.be/yRJC5yf7Zrk?si=uolLyDPYO6WT3UpY

 

[literallyretarded]

Why did every peasant rebellion in medieval Europe target nobles in general, rather than just noblemen? Same with slave rebellions. Ditto when a new dynasty/clan had usurped some territory or a position, and to make sure they'll retain a hold of it, they would target and/or imprison all the immediate family members of the previous owner, regardless of age or gender?

You don't target those who pose no possible threat to you. According to the mainstream misandrist interpretation of history, women were effectively second-class citizens who were limited in, if not expelled from, any access to wealth, influence and power to such an extent that they effectively might as well have all been below even the lowest male serf when it came to power hierarchies and possibilities to climb them. For an example of this thinking, a month or so ago in an anthology book I've been reading, there was a feminist story set in some time before WWI, where there were comical scenes like the mandatory abused teenage bride starting to cry hysterically after being told that she gave birth to a daughter, because she "Knew that she had brought another life that will only be abused and never hold any power."

Yet, if anything, whenever violence had historically gotten political and based on who held power, that is when gender had become irrelevant and foids were targeted as well. We have ample evidence of them commonly not being targeted in cases of interpersonal violence where often nobody involved held any serious power and where power over people wasn't one of the causes, such as blood feuds between families and in street crime. Both of those are the case now as well, anyone who doubts that can go look at how quickly any and all foids in a group become completely irrelevant to everyone once a street fight between two groups breaks out. That obviously makes sense, since, as I've said, you don't target those who pose no threat to you, and, although I'm the type of a guy to always point out that foids are responsible for much more violence than people think, it's true that their ability to cause physical violence isn't up to par with men's on average.

Which only makes it that much more jarring that they very much were targeted whenever a lower-status group had rebelled against a higher-status one. Obviously, likely not as much as men have, they never are because men are hardwired to protect foids and in any situation where foid casualties can be minimized by male ones being maximalized, they will be, but in those political types of conflict they were much more often targeted along with men than in irrelevant, interpersonal blood feuds and street crime, both of which were men-only, mostly young men against other mostly young men things for as long as we have records of them.

While historians and feminists wax lyrical about the supposed pitiful state of women for most of history, kept in metaphorical, if not real cages, with even the most privileged of them being just "privileged puppets" with no power over their own lives and bound to a live of abuse and servitude comparable to those of other oppressed groups in society, the people actually living in those times don't seem to have ever seen it that way. No peasant rebellion has ever decided to not target noblewomen because they were "equally oppressed" as them or whatever, they just went to smash their heads in just like they did to their husbands, brothers and sons. No slave rebellion has ever done that either. When a powerful noble house had decided to wipe out another powerful noble house, the women of the latter were never, or only rarely, shown any mercy (this being the only type of blood feuds where women were targeted at scale).


View: https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/12o3qag/are_there_any_historical_examples_of_noble_houses/


You'd think if those "privileged puppets" were as powerless in their own right as constantly described by misandrist historians, both right-wing and left-wing, political violence would be completely androcidal, since it would make no sense for it to be anything else than a gendercide targeting men alone. You'd expect history to be littered with stories of noblewomen and other privileged women surviving peasant and slave rebellions, upper-class infighting, ethnic cleansings and successful revolutions unharmed, because they themselves would've had no power which they could've continued using against the downtrodden, yet that has never happened. Instead, this type of conflict is the least gendercidal one of all, with it being the irrelevant, random killings on the street that almost solely targeted males, which they do even now.

Just look at the ethnic cleansings in the 20th century. After WWII ended and most of CEE decided to kick the Germans out, the German foids weren't exempted. Neither were Polish foids when Banderites started massacring Poles. Or we can go a couple of centuries back, and see how indiscriminate the German peasants were during the Peasants' War in 16th century. Or well over a millenium back to one of the things that really got me thinking over this. A lot is made of how unique Wu Zetian was to be the only reigning Empress in Chinese history, and how ruthless she was to get there, but funnily enough, considering how suppposedly impossible the mere thought of a woman attaining a powerful position would've been for anyone else, she herself didn't seem to think so, if the ruthlessness with which she dealt with the female members of the imperial family's rival lines is any indication. Not how someone deals with people who don't pose any threat to them, I'd say.

For how key to people's lives and opportunities gender supposedly was for most of history, it had a remarkable ability to become irrelevant whenever any other power differential (class, status, race/ethnicity) was introduced, and in the end, people's actual actions exposed what their world was truly like.

your kind of wrong women did not hold power only in rare cases did they hold power but thats how it should be the reason women were qoute on qoute oppressed and had no rights or power is because they are fucking retarded who tf wants a women to hold power or lead a nation no one the ancient people were not retarded and woke and knew this people back then knew the only thing women were good for was sex cleaning the house and making/taking care of kids this is how it is supposed to be women never held power because they shouldn't hold power we are just so morally cucked as a society we cant see that only time a women ever held any wealth or influence is because of her husband nothing else

 

[The Notorious SLAV]

your kind of wrong women did not hold power only in rare cases did they hold power but thats how it should be the reason women were qoute on qoute oppressed and had no rights or power is because they are fucking retarded

My point is that it depends how you look at it, and that their actions make it hard to imagine that the rebels and other nobles saw it the way we see now. If you sat down a medieval peasant in some village in Flanders for example (which if I remember correctly I read about having noblewomen ruling its estates particularly often since their husbands were so often at war, though I could be misremembering and it was actually some other French/Belgian region) and started hammering to him that, sure, his taxes are going to the Lady and she decides how they all live, but akshually, just like them she has no power of her own because she's only representing her husband in his absence, you could probably get him to agree, but apart from that I don't think he would care at all.

Not to mention that this "all or nothing" logic that is used to absolve historical foids of any agency or power they might have used for anything bad is exposed as completely idiotic every time it's applied to any other hierarchy. By that same logic, company VPs have no power because the CEO can overrule them, yet that is exactly the logic used by historians to push the "Women were oppressed" narrative.

who tf wants a women to hold power or lead a nation

This kinda follows right from it, but the reason I focus on the more local and smaller-scale elites, is because those were the ones ordinary people actually had to deal with (and still are). It's easy to decide that foids were oppressed when looking only at the kings who ruled the various nations, but the average person would never have any contact with any of them. They would however have contact with whoever ruled the particular estate they lived on, and that could easily be a woman.

no one the ancient people were not retarded and woke and knew this people back then knew the only thing women were good for was sex cleaning the house and making/taking care of kids this is how it is supposed to be women never held power because they shouldn't hold power we are just so morally cucked as a society we cant see that only time a women ever held any wealth or influence is because of her husband nothing else

And her husband often had wealth or power only thanks to his father (and likewise, the only reason those women were married to those men was also thanks to their fathers'/parents' wealth), yet that is never brought up by historians to minimize their agency because it can't be when you trying to create a gender oppression narrative.

 

[literallyretarded]

My point is that it depends how you look at it, and that their actions make it hard to imagine that the rebels and other nobles saw it the way we see now. If you sat down a medieval peasant in some village in Flanders for example (which if I remember correctly I read about having noblewomen ruling its estates particularly often since their husbands were so often at war, though I could be misremembering and it was actually some other French/Belgian region) and started hammering to him that, sure, his taxes are going to the Lady and she decides how they all live, but akshually, just like them she has no power of her own because she's only representing her husband in his absence, you could probably get him to agree, but apart from that I don't think he would care at all.

Not to mention that this "all or nothing" logic that is used to absolve historical foids of any agency or power they might have used for anything bad is exposed as completely idiotic every time it's applied to any other hierarchy. By that same logic, company VPs have no power because the CEO can overrule them, yet that is exactly the logic used by historians to push the "Women were oppressed" narrative.


This kinda follows right from it, but the reason I focus on the more local and smaller-scale elites, is because those were the ones ordinary people actually had to deal with (and still are). It's easy to decide that foids were oppressed when looking only at the kings who ruled the various nations, but the average person would never have any contact with any of them. They would however have contact with whoever ruled the particular estate they lived on, and that could easily be a woman.


And her husband often had wealth or power only thanks to his father (and likewise, the only reason those women were married to those men was also thanks to their fathers'/parents' wealth), yet that is never brought up by historians to minimize their agency because it can't be when you trying to create a gender oppression narrative.

so true mang

 

[turbocuckcel_7000]

Why did every peasant rebellion in medieval Europe target nobles in general, rather than just noblemen? Same with slave rebellions. Ditto when a new dynasty/clan had usurped some territory or a position, and to make sure they'll retain a hold of it, they would target and/or imprison all the immediate family members of the previous owner, regardless of age or gender?

You don't target those who pose no possible threat to you. According to the mainstream misandrist interpretation of history, women were effectively second-class citizens who were limited in, if not expelled from, any access to wealth, influence and power to such an extent that they effectively might as well have all been below even the lowest male serf when it came to power hierarchies and possibilities to climb them. For an example of this thinking, a month or so ago in an anthology book I've been reading, there was a feminist story set in some time before WWI, where there were comical scenes like the mandatory abused teenage bride starting to cry hysterically after being told that she gave birth to a daughter, because she "Knew that she had brought another life that will only be abused and never hold any power."

Yet, if anything, whenever violence had historically gotten political and based on who held power, that is when gender had become irrelevant and foids were targeted as well. We have ample evidence of them commonly not being targeted in cases of interpersonal violence where often nobody involved held any serious power and where power over people wasn't one of the causes, such as blood feuds between families and in street crime. Both of those are the case now as well, anyone who doubts that can go look at how quickly any and all foids in a group become completely irrelevant to everyone once a street fight between two groups breaks out. That obviously makes sense, since, as I've said, you don't target those who pose no threat to you, and, although I'm the type of a guy to always point out that foids are responsible for much more violence than people think, it's true that their ability to cause physical violence isn't up to par with men's on average.

Which only makes it that much more jarring that they very much were targeted whenever a lower-status group had rebelled against a higher-status one. Obviously, likely not as much as men have, they never are because men are hardwired to protect foids and in any situation where foid casualties can be minimized by male ones being maximalized, they will be, but in those political types of conflict they were much more often targeted along with men than in irrelevant, interpersonal blood feuds and street crime, both of which were men-only, mostly young men against other mostly young men things for as long as we have records of them.

While historians and feminists wax lyrical about the supposed pitiful state of women for most of history, kept in metaphorical, if not real cages, with even the most privileged of them being just "privileged puppets" with no power over their own lives and bound to a live of abuse and servitude comparable to those of other oppressed groups in society, the people actually living in those times don't seem to have ever seen it that way. No peasant rebellion has ever decided to not target noblewomen because they were "equally oppressed" as them or whatever, they just went to smash their heads in just like they did to their husbands, brothers and sons. No slave rebellion has ever done that either. When a powerful noble house had decided to wipe out another powerful noble house, the women of the latter were never, or only rarely, shown any mercy (this being the only type of blood feuds where women were targeted at scale).


View: https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/12o3qag/are_there_any_historical_examples_of_noble_houses/


You'd think if those "privileged puppets" were as powerless in their own right as constantly described by misandrist historians, both right-wing and left-wing, political violence would be completely androcidal, since it would make no sense for it to be anything else than a gendercide targeting men alone. You'd expect history to be littered with stories of noblewomen and other privileged women surviving peasant and slave rebellions, upper-class infighting, ethnic cleansings and successful revolutions unharmed, because they themselves would've had no power which they could've continued using against the downtrodden, yet that has never happened. Instead, this type of conflict is the least gendercidal one of all, with it being the irrelevant, random killings on the street that almost solely targeted males, which they do even now.

Just look at the ethnic cleansings in the 20th century. After WWII ended and most of CEE decided to kick the Germans out, the German foids weren't exempted. Neither were Polish foids when Banderites started massacring Poles. Or we can go a couple of centuries back, and see how indiscriminate the German peasants were during the Peasants' War in 16th century. Or well over a millenium back to one of the things that really got me thinking over this. A lot is made of how unique Wu Zetian was to be the only reigning Empress in Chinese history, and how ruthless she was to get there, but funnily enough, considering how suppposedly impossible the mere thought of a woman attaining a powerful position would've been for anyone else, she herself didn't seem to think so, if the ruthlessness with which she dealt with the female members of the imperial family's rival lines is any indication. Not how someone deals with people who don't pose any threat to them, I'd say.

For how key to people's lives and opportunities gender supposedly was for most of history, it had a remarkable ability to become irrelevant whenever any other power differential (class, status, race/ethnicity) was introduced, and in the end, people's actual actions exposed what their world was truly like.

Tera iq. Unfortunately it's a pretty well known stereotype that female leaders were more aggressive than male leaders, it's just one of those things that everyone has agreed to ignore.

Obligatory comedy AI cope:

AI Overview

Historically, queens were not inherently more ruthless than kings, but studies show they were often more aggressive in foreign policy, with states ruled by queens being up to 39 percentage points more likely to engage in war between 1480 and 1913 than those ruled by kings. This proactive approach may have been a tactic to secure power, as female leaders often had to act decisively to overcome gender bias and retain authority.

 

[turbocuckcel_7000]

its just the usual BS. If the men were killed and women survived, where would the assets and land go if women werent allowed to inherit? Did they just return to nature? Also a woman can easily give birth to a male heir, which then becomes a threat extremely quickly. There are many kings in history that started leading armies in their teens, so within 10-15 years you would have some fucknigga take revenge for shit you did to his father and brothers decades ago. The whole female oppression narrative is so weak.

Another thing I recently thought about is age of first birth. Many here still think, and I used to be guilty too, that they just rape creampied girls the moment they had their first period. As it turns out the average age of first child historically is like 25. Yes. Not 14, 15, 16, 18 - 25. Sometimes it was a bit lower, sometimes older, but not anywhere near 12-15. It was much closer to modern standards. The age of first child was basically the same until the 1960s when the pill was invented. Nowadays I would guess the age hasnt changed but people just abort the child (40-50% of pregnancies are unwanted accidents even in 1st world) or the child gets spawn camped by contraceptives. So technically it hasnt changed.

‘Medieval women had their first child much later than previously thought’ - Leiden University

Costume dramas would have us believe that women in the Middle Ages became mothers at a much younger age than they do today. University lecturer Krista Milne wants to refute this image with the help of an NWO XS grant. ‘In the past, not all data was taken into account.’

www.student.universiteitleiden.nl

We also have to always ask yourself, how tf would you even determine that. For medieval times in europe you can easily imagine good data sets, because churches kept birth and death records etc. But for romans and ancient greeks were 90% of society were basically human trash that couldnt read or write - how would we know? Here we get again outlandish claims like, the girls were married of at 13 and immediatly impregnated. But other research shows roman doctors openly advocating against that + the actual age for average people being closer to 20+ for marriage, with first child obviously coming in even later, somewhere between 21 and 25.

Average age of conception throughout human history

Determining the average age of conception throughout human history to discover more about humans, then and in the future

www.openaccessgovernment.org

There was never oppression and systematic breeding of women, like women fantasize about in shit like handmaidens tale. It has never existed. Let's not forget that breeding, pregnancy and sex are not governed by laws, in fact laws could not even govern these. So why would people act different now than 2000 years ago.

Oh, just thought of this:

View attachment 1716375

Notice how teen is in top 3 for both genders. So could the narrative of 12 year old girls being impregnated by 30 year old dudes in the past just be projection by both genders? It's basically the ugly bastard fetish overlaid onto history.

I have very mixed feelings about all this. Because I know even though ancient civilizations were a lot more civilized than we perceive, and they were not like Handmaiden's Tale, young people develop early and they do have urges including young girls.

IF the girls were truly that completely protected from sex until they were in their twenties, then the only reason that this worked out and the men didn't revolt, is because those civilizations had numerous outlets for sexual release, not all of them that desirable, from prostitution at best, to fag behavior between unmarried men at worst. And the more historical evidence that ancient societies fiercely protected young girls, the more believable the claims about generalized fag behavior in ancient times become. Rather bittersweet to think about.

 

[Pikacel]

I have very mixed feelings about all this. Because I know even though ancient civilizations were a lot more civilized than we perceive, and they were not like Handmaiden's Tale, young people develop early and they do have urges including young girls.

IF the girls were truly that completely protected from sex until they were in their twenties, then the only reason that this worked out and the men didn't revolt, is because those civilizations had numerous outlets for sexual release, not all of them that desirable, from prostitution at best, to fag behavior between unmarried men at worst. And the more historical evidence that ancient societies fiercely protected young girls, the more believable the claims about generalized fag behavior in ancient times become. Rather bittersweet to think about.

Fags, prostitution and just illicit sex

 

[EcstasyCel]

Bullshit, average age for childbirth being 27 spanned over the whole reproductive range spanning from 16-38. Within that bracket reproduction had always been common.

HELL, EVEN 20 YEARS AGO, teen pregnancy was very common even in the developed world compared to now, so cut the bullshit.

And even if the average marriage age for women was 23, it was still relatively common for women to marry in their teens. It wasn't this hyper taboo thing that it is now, since the Catholic Church at the time permitted marriage of women 12 and up.

@GeckoBus

 

[The Notorious SLAV]

Bullshit, average age for childbirth being 27 spanned over the whole reproductive range spanning from 16-38. Within that bracket reproduction had always been common.

HELL, EVEN 20 YEARS AGO, teen pregnancy was very common even in the developed world compared to now, so cut the bullshit.

And even if the average marriage age for women was 23, it was still relatively common for women to marry in their teens. It wasn't this hyper taboo thing that it is now, since

Depends on what you mean by "very common" and "hyper taboo". The percentage of births to teenagers in Europe is half of what it was in 1950 (though it has been higher between those two points), and that's comparing two time periods with wildly different amounts of birth control. I wouldn't be surprised if there were minimal differences if that was taken out of the equation.

the Catholic Church at the time permitted marriage of women 12 and up.

@GeckoBus

A lot of the world still allows teens under 18 to be married though. Just with parental approval (and maybe an unsympathetic judge could be a problem). So, just like in medieval times anyway. It's a bit amusing how people often imagine that in the past, they'd just choose some teen girl, tell her father they want to marry her, and it would be a done deal, when that exact same thing can happen now as well in many Western countries, yet it's not even seen as a possibility by an overhwelming majority of men. It almost temps me to just start asking those guys what do they think holds them back from trying that and why they think they would have a certain success in the past. @GeckoBus @fatass30000

 

[The Notorious SLAV]

Bullshit, average age for childbirth being 27 spanned over the whole reproductive range spanning from 16-38. Within that bracket reproduction had always been common.

HELL, EVEN 20 YEARS AGO, teen pregnancy was very common even in the developed world compared to now, so cut the bullshit.

And even if the average marriage age for women was 23, it was still relatively common for women to marry in their teens. It wasn't this hyper taboo thing that it is now, since the Catholic Church at the time permitted marriage of women 12 and up.

@GeckoBus

Depends on what you mean by "very common" and "hyper taboo". The percentage of births to teenagers in Europe is half of what it was in 1950 (though it has been higher between those two points), and that's comparing two time periods with wildly different amounts of birth control. I wouldn't be surprised if there were minimal differences if that was taken out of the equation.

View attachment 1723180


A lot of the world still allows teens under 18 to be married though. Just with parental approval (and maybe an unsympathetic judge could be a problem). So, just like in medieval times anyway. It's a bit amusing how people often imagine that in the past, they'd just choose some teen girl, tell her father they want to marry her, and it would be a done deal, when that exact same thing can happen now as well in many Western countries, yet it's not even seen as a possibility by an overhwelming majority of men. It almost temps me to just start asking those guys what do they think holds them back from trying that and why they think they would have a certain success in the past. @GeckoBus @fatass30000

View attachment 1723172

Also, damn, I just read why this guy got banned.

 

[GeckoBus]

Also, damn, I just read why this guy got banned.

LMFAO going after a 9 year old, now his replies here check out schizo ass actually believes they mohammed style fucked pre-pubescent kids back in the day on regular basis JFLLLLL

Depends on what you mean by "very common" and "hyper taboo". The percentage of births to teenagers in Europe is half of what it was in 1950 (though it has been higher between those two points), and that's comparing two time periods with wildly different amounts of birth control. I wouldn't be surprised if there were minimal differences if that was taken out of the equation.

View attachment 1723180


A lot of the world still allows teens under 18 to be married though. Just with parental approval (and maybe an unsympathetic judge could be a problem). So, just like in medieval times anyway. It's a bit amusing how people often imagine that in the past, they'd just choose some teen girl, tell her father they want to marry her, and it would be a done deal, when that exact same thing can happen now as well in many Western countries, yet it's not even seen as a possibility by an overhwelming majority of men. It almost temps me to just start asking those guys what do they think holds them back from trying that and why they think they would have a certain success in the past. @GeckoBus @fatass30000

View attachment 1723172

he also conflated possible marriage age with actual age of sex and first pregnancy, which is not the same on any level. In my country of the germany, the age of consent is 14. If there is no evidence of manipulation or grooming, it is perfectly legal here for a 30+ year old man to fuck and be in relationship with a 14yo girl. How has that impacted the age of marriage or first child? It has not. Nothing has changed because human nature > law. Nature always comes first and subordinates the law. You could completely remove the age of consent and people would still marry in their 20s and have kids in their late 20s to early 30s like they have now. It doesnt make a difference.

Nobody in germany gets married at 18 or has kids at 18. That would be absurd in peoples eyes, though legally possible. In the past this wasnt any different.

A lot of the world still allows teens under 18 to be married though. Just with parental approval (and maybe an unsympathetic judge could be a problem). So, just like in medieval times anyway. It's a bit amusing how people often imagine that in the past, they'd just choose some teen girl, tell her father they want to marry her, and it would be a done deal, when that exact same thing can happen now as well in many Western countries, yet it's not even seen as a possibility by an overhwelming majority of men. It almost temps me to just start asking those guys what do they think holds them back from trying that and why they think they would have a certain success in the past. @

Exactly how do they think this worked? Did people just advertise their daughters like some dog owner putting puppies up for sale after their dog gives birth? Do you go on some local billboard and it has like a 100 things up saying:
"my daughter (12) just had her period, up and comers choose quickly! only 9.99! first come first served!"

Another thing people completely miss here is that virginity mattering is a christian concept. That shit didnt matter to ancient romans I would bet. Even in the middle ages the majority of people had sex before marriage. Many medieval people didnt even know the church was against sex before marriage. It was common to get pregnant before marriage even. Given this, it makes no sense to assume that these women would be virgins into their 20s. It was just like nowadays, they would use primitive contraception like the counting method + women cant get pregnant 80% of the year anyway + primitive abortion methods were available + anal sex exists as crazy as that sounds. They had their tools and they used them.

You might be surprised to hear that the concept of marriage in this period of the Middle Ages was a whole lot less strict and structured than marriage is now.

That’s another important point. The Church had to work long and hard over the course of its early days and into the High Middle Ages to become the authority on legally-binding marriage. Up until the High Middle Ages marriages were more of a contract between families that the Church had nothing to do with. It wasn’t until around 1100 that the Church had a truly firm monopoly on marriage as a legal institution. Incidentally, it wasn’t until the ecumenical councils in 1123 and 1139 that priests and monks were legally forbidden to marry or keep concubines. Before that they could marry just like anyone else, although the Church frowned on it.


GECKO NOTE: in the ortohdox christian church priests can still and have always been allowed and even encouraged to marry and have kids.

But amongst the peasantry, at least in England, at least in the late 12th, early 13th centuries, women had a lot more freedom to marry and inherit than their contemporaries on the continent.


So what this lady is saying is that until the middle of the middle ages, the church did not even control marriage. It was just a legal contract between people to manage inheritance and assets. As such, the entire concept of spiritual purity through virginity before marriage didnt even matter. It was pointless because marriage was a secular contract, not a spiritual union that the church had a monopoly on, please let that sink in.

Marriage and Sex in the Middle Ages

For the next couple of weeks, as lead-up to the release of my novel The Faithful Heart, second in the Noble Hearts trilogy, I’m going to take a look at the historical facts for some of the key topi…

merryfarmer.wordpress.com

Data from the 2002 survey indicate that by age 20, 77% of respondents had had sex, 75% had had premarital sex, and 12% had married; by age 44, 95% of respondents (94% of women, 96% of men, and 97% of those who had ever had sex) had had premarital sex. Even among those who abstained until at least age 20, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44. Among cohorts of women turning 15 between 1964 and 1993, at least 91% had had premarital sex by age 30. Among those turning 15 between 1954 and 1963, 82% had had premarital sex by age 30, and 88% had done so by age 44.

"Women were more innocent back in the 60's" . Study proves copers wrong

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1802108/ Data from the 2002 survey indicate that by age 20, 77% of respondents had had sex, 75% had had premarital sex, and 12% had married; by age 44, 95% of respondents (94% of women, 96% of men, and 97% of those who had ever had sex) had had...

incels.is

""...it appears that unrestrained sexual activity was quite common throughout Europe during these times. In fact, most did not believe fornication was a sin at all, ...St. Vincent Ferrer claimed that by age fifteen, all young men had lost their virginity..."

Medieval female sexuality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[tired as fuck]

found this in video randomly. 1970s woman interviews woman born in victorian era and asks "you were seen as a lower form of life, werent you?" and the old woman flat out says, idk, didnt feel like we were ("I didnt notice, but it may well be true"). Then the interviewer keeps pressing and asking if she felt oppressed by men and the old hag just goes no, no lmao. Great find, it starts at 3:45 in video:


View: https://youtu.be/lYv1rjBEJ1Y?t=218

View attachment 1716474

for fuck's sake, thank you gecko this is a great find.
Not only because the woman completely owns the foid interviewer, who is CLEARLY biased, but because she also displays such a breadth of vocabulary which you only see in those older folks. We've really fallen off as a civilization mang; pleasant to listen to her speak.

 

[fatass30000]

Also, damn, I just read why this guy got banned.

i was about to tell you to read the his most recent post it explains every belief he has.

Although i’m very against teen marriage. Not because i think it’s immoral, but because it’s straight up retarded. I’m against a 16 year old marrying another 16 year old as well. If you marry a 16 year old, what’s gonna end up happening is, they will end up maturing into a very different person that isn’t compatible with you anymore. And it’s just gonna result in you getting divorce raped. Marriage is basically a promise saying that you will spend the rest of your life with another person, a retarded ass 16 year old will never get the full grasp of that. I personally believe that marriage should happen mid to late 20s when you have both established what kind of people you’re. Only reason marriage worked in the past was because women had the expectation of staying with their husband no matter what and were shamed for leaving, but that’s long gone. Now they just divorce rape you if they have a bad day.

 

[xoxo_404]

If power is ever given to foids, we're all done for

 

[xoxo_404]

for fuck's sake, thank you gecko this is a great find.
Not only because the woman completely owns the foid interviewer, who is CLEARLY biased, but because she also displays such a breadth of vocabulary which you only see in those older folks. We've really fallen off as a civilization mang; pleasant to listen to her speak.

 

[The Notorious SLAV]

Exactly how do they think this worked? Did people just advertise their daughters like some dog owner putting puppies up for sale after their dog gives birth? Do you go on some local billboard and it has like a 100 things up saying:
"my daughter (12) just had her period, up and comers choose quickly! only 9.99! first come first served!"

Another thing people completely miss here is that virginity mattering is a christian concept. That shit didnt matter to ancient romans I would bet. Even in the middle ages the majority of people had sex before marriage. Many medieval people didnt even know the church was against sex before marriage.

The last part is one of those things you don't think about, but once it's pointed out it becomes obvious.

So what this lady is saying is that until the middle of the middle ages, the church did not even control marriage. It was just a legal contract between people to manage inheritance and assets. As such, the entire concept of spiritual purity through virginity before marriage didnt even matter. It was pointless because marriage was a secular contract, not a spiritual union that the church had a monopoly on, please let that sink in.

Marriage and Sex in the Middle Ages

For the next couple of weeks, as lead-up to the release of my novel The Faithful Heart, second in the Noble Hearts trilogy, I’m going to take a look at the historical facts for some of the key topi…

merryfarmer.wordpress.com

Interesting, read all.

Also, as you've suggested, here's what's probably my favourite late medieval court case.

For example, such is assumed to be the fate of a woman named Colette Phelipe, who in 1392 stood accused of the abandonment of her one-year-old daughter, as well as theft and repeated fornication (Duples-Agier 1861, v.2: 525–533).

According to her confession, and as reported in witness testimony, Colette had come to Paris from Normandy looking for work. She had found employment as a domestic servant and wool weaver, and had sex during that time with two men: first, the Florentine father of her infant, and second, after his departure, another foreigner who helped her find work and a room to live in. The authorities who sat in judgement over Colette clearly did not have much sympathy for her. In particular, they were not impressed by her claims that she had not abandoned her daughter.

She had testified instead that a woman she did not know, and could not name, had taken the infant to the church and left her there. These officials also criticised Colette for ‘having surrendered her body to loose-living men,’ when, they asserted, she could have found ‘honest work.’ They observed that she seemed young and healthy and well dressed, capable of supporting herself and her infant. How did they punish her? We do not know. The officials continued their deliberations, but the record stops there, the one proceeding of this register for which we do not know the outcome.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363398758_Judging_sexy_women_in_late_medieval_France

They didn't like that she was fucking around, but the main thing she was being judged for was child abandonment, and completely contrary to what we are left to implicitly imagine the past was like by how it's generally described, she clearly had a complete freedom of movement since she could travel from Normandy to Paris on her own, work, and not just work, but do well enough to where it was used against her by the officials who pointed out that she could live pretty well and support her daughter as a single mother.

But muh foids in the past "were left to starve if they didn't marry".

Although i’m very against teen marriage. Not because i think it’s immoral, but because it’s straight up retarded. I’m against a 16 year old marrying another 16 year old as well. If you marry a 16 year old, what’s gonna end up happening is, they will end up maturing into a very different person that isn’t compatible with you anymore. And it’s just gonna result in you getting divorce raped.

Absolutely. This reminds me that there was recently some LARP post on looksmax from a guy saying that he has an account here and is trying to "deradicalize" and "save" the people here, who said that he managed to save a guy from here by getting him to work out and stuff, and now that 20-year-old has gotten married and has a good life. And the hilarious thing is, he did get people calling him out as LARPing, which he responded to by telling the people to be more positive and whatever, but then, he also had people saying that that's more sad and uncomfortable than a happy ending, because a 20-year-old marrying a girl he knew for a month is almost certainly not going to end well and sounds more like a future nightmare scenario, which he just ignored and didn't even bother replying to.

 

[xoxo_404]

Saved, very interesting.

The past is so different to the fetishized and politicized version of it we are constantly fed man.


ABSOLUTELY.

Great find indeed, the interviewer was trying so hard to get her to agree.

 

[kevkon]

Women were never oppressed. Misogyny never existed.

Women being oppressed is a feminist lie.

Feminists are very successful in spreading lies , misinformation and hatred against men, that's why most people think " men bad , women good " and " men oppressors, women oppressed ".

Women weren’t oppressed but they were seen as below men, the thing about that is though, is that most women LIKED THIS. Women liked having less rights because they didn’t want the responsibilities, duties and obligations that came with being equal to men.

The women’s suffrage movement for example was astroturfed by feminist men, it’s a myth that most women wanted voting rights. They didnt, most women DIDN'T WANT to vote. They didn’t want anything to do with influencing the hellhole of politics and had an understanding that this is more in the realm of men.

When it comes to women joining the workforce again, we’ve been led to believe that women fought for this right and earned it themselves but most women didn’t want to work, they had no reason to. They enjoyed staying at home being provided for. Women joining the workforce was something that was mainly pushed by the government so that they could tax double the amount of incomes.

All this is to say, whenever people talk about women’s role in society like they are some unfortunate victims who are suffering under oppression is inaccurate, most women know what they want and what their roles are and what they should be and enjoy the place they are in, it’s the vocal minority of feminist retards and simp men that are pushing this revisionist history.

 

[The Notorious SLAV]

Women weren’t oppressed but they were seen as below men, the thing about that is though, is that most women LIKED THIS. Women liked having less rights because they didn’t want the responsibilities, duties and obligations that came with being equal to men.

Fair enough, I just wanted to point out that social status obviously mattered much more, and that is blindingly obvious through even a cursory look at the past.

The women’s suffrage movement for example was astroturfed by feminist men, it’s a myth that most women wanted voting rights. They didnt, most women DIDN'T WANT to vote.

From what I understood reading through the source in this thread by @GeckoBus, suffragists, ironically, avoided all talks and offers of a female-only referendum on this, since they knew that they didn’t have a majority. Apparently, right on the eve of them getting the right to vote, one prominent suffragist estimated there to be an equal three-way split, with a third wanting the right to vote, a third not wanting it, and another third not caring.

Women Opposed Female Rights, Not Men [Study]

video View: https://youtu.be/WQpC_5Ha7Ng PDF from video is attached here: https://mega.nz/file/8vdG0JqK#0_5wwaI_fB_wgON5h3wwM8utFrk-YwENUoWs7YtlJA4 TLDR - women know their privileges and power. Voting rights for women seemed to take that power from them, and make them equal to men...

incels.is

They didn’t want anything to do with influencing the hellhole of politics and had an understanding that this is more in the realm of men.

Not exactly true. Again, talking about the source in the above-linked thread, US foids not only wanted to but also did actively influence politics by organizing through Women’s Clubs. What they didn’t want was male fractional párty politics, and anti-suffrage women even dabbed on suffragists by pointing out that their approach meant that anti-suffrage states were approving pro-female laws faster and in greater numbers than the ones with universal suffrage.

Although lobbying by 1,700,000 organized clubwomen resulted in the passage of many new laws, there is a widespread misconception that women were powerless to influence lawmakers before they could vote. Anti-suffrage women never accepted this view, and as proof, they repeatedly argued that laws favoring women, such as those prohibiting night work and long hours for women factory workers, were better in non-suffrage states than in suffrage states. From 1908 to 1910, fifty-four laws to protect women workers were enacted in non-suffrage states, versus only one such law in suffrage states, according to Minnie Bronson

Even without voting, clubwomen around 1900 actively supported political candidates, lobbied for better laws, circulated petitions, and conducted educational campaigns on dozens of issues, but without connections to any political party. People understood the distinction between women having influence over lawmakers, as clubwomen did, and entering the male world of partisan politics, as suffragists advocated. It is an important point, and not one of the fifteen college textbooks makes this distinction.

And of course, nothing needs to be said about how often European noblewomen involved themselves in political matters.

When it comes to women joining the workforce again, we’ve been led to believe that women fought for this right and earned it themselves but most women didn’t want to work, they had no reason to. They enjoyed staying at home being provided for. Women joining the workforce was something that was mainly pushed by the government so that they could tax double the amount of incomes.

Yup.

EARLY FEMINISTS WANTED WOMEN TO WORK LESS - NOT MORE -> REPLY OR U GAY

"The desire to free oneself from work was common to all classes and both sexes. Dr Joanna Bourke of Birkbeck College, London, has studied the diaries of 5,000 women who lived between 1860 and 1930. During that period, the proportion of women in paid employment dropped from 75 per cent to 10...

incels.is

A narrative-breaker so good I put it in my "foids were never oppressed" collage I still plan to spam on 4chan.

The top right graph about voting rights is also funny. The period when all men could vote while women couldn't was so tiny when you look at it, just a small liminal phase that's obviously never coming back and has been completely irrelevant once it passed, yet it's hyped up so much by feminists who base like half of their belief in somehow being oppressed on it. It's crazy.

All this is to say, whenever people talk about women’s role in society like they are some unfortunate victims who are suffering under oppression is inaccurate, most women know what they want and what their roles are and what they should be and enjoy the place they are in, it’s the vocal minority of feminist retards and simp men that are pushing this revisionist history.