Just something I've noticed reading about various ancient/medieval societies
. Really makes you think. According to feminists, women, during just about the entire history of the world before the first wave of feminism, were "oppressed." Uniformly, they were supposedly "objects", to be traded and married off at the whim of their fathers with no rights of their own instead of legally being their own people.
Well, the funny thing is, the vast majority of past societies, if not all of them, did actually have groups of people who were legally objects with very little, if any rights of their own, and who could be bought and sold at a whim. Now, given how history is presented by feminists and their allied academics, who totally have no reason to misrepresent history, of course not, why would anybody think that, you'd expect there to be at least some overlap between women as a group and this group of people who could be bought and sold and were seen as property.
And, of course, there's absolutely no such overlap. Not only was there never any society that considered all women to be slaves and beneath all free men, there doesn't even seem to have ever been a society where slaves were significantly more likely to be female rather than male, and, as I've already said in the title, I genuinely couldn't find a single society where slave ownership was restricted to men, no matter how little economic rights the women in that society supposedly had.
There's a large amount of evidence proving that women could own and trade slaves in the Roman empire. There's documented proof of women owning, buying and selling slaves in Abbasid and Umayyad Caliphates, and just like with the Roman Empire, there's a large amount of evidence that women by themselves could own slaves in the Ottoman empire, with those slaves being specifically their property and their husbands not automatically having the right to order those slaves around.
European noblewomen could of course own both lands and the serfs bound to the those lands, even though getting to them was usually harder for them than for their brothers. In pre-Civil War United States, about 40% of slaveowners were women according to the current research.
Even in Classical Athens, which was very much a more-than-average women restricting society during that time. personal slaves were one of the things women could own. For other ancient societies like Egypt, Persia and so on, there doesn't seem to be even an indication that women were in any way restricted from owning human property.
Overall, quite "interestingly", it seems that the entire feminist cope idea of women being "le oppressed" throughout history is comically overblown, if not completely made up. It's almost like the main factor in how oppressed you were and how bad it was for you was your social class and ethnic group/religion, and the oh-so-oppressed women never had it even slightly as bad as the men below them.
. Really makes you think. According to feminists, women, during just about the entire history of the world before the first wave of feminism, were "oppressed." Uniformly, they were supposedly "objects", to be traded and married off at the whim of their fathers with no rights of their own instead of legally being their own people.Well, the funny thing is, the vast majority of past societies, if not all of them, did actually have groups of people who were legally objects with very little, if any rights of their own, and who could be bought and sold at a whim. Now, given how history is presented by feminists and their allied academics, who totally have no reason to misrepresent history, of course not
, why would anybody think that, you'd expect there to be at least some overlap between women as a group and this group of people who could be bought and sold and were seen as property.And, of course, there's absolutely no such overlap. Not only was there never any society that considered all women to be slaves and beneath all free men, there doesn't even seem to have ever been a society where slaves were significantly more likely to be female rather than male, and, as I've already said in the title, I genuinely couldn't find a single society where slave ownership was restricted to men, no matter how little economic rights the women in that society supposedly had.
There's a large amount of evidence proving that women could own and trade slaves in the Roman empire. There's documented proof of women owning, buying and selling slaves in Abbasid and Umayyad Caliphates, and just like with the Roman Empire, there's a large amount of evidence that women by themselves could own slaves in the Ottoman empire, with those slaves being specifically their property and their husbands not automatically having the right to order those slaves around.
European noblewomen could of course own both lands and the serfs bound to the those lands, even though getting to them was usually harder for them than for their brothers. In pre-Civil War United States, about 40% of slaveowners were women according to the current research.
Even in Classical Athens, which was very much a more-than-average women restricting society during that time. personal slaves were one of the things women could own. For other ancient societies like Egypt, Persia and so on, there doesn't seem to be even an indication that women were in any way restricted from owning human property.
Overall, quite "interestingly"
, it seems that the entire feminist cope idea of women being "le oppressed" throughout history is comically overblown, if not completely made up. It's almost like the main factor in how oppressed you were and how bad it was for you was your social class and ethnic group/religion, and the oh-so-oppressed women never had it even slightly as bad as the men below them.@DarkStarDownsyndrom @Made in Heaven @GeckoBus @OutcompetedByRoomba @based_meme @Epedaphic @decafincel @weaselbomber @CorpseCel @Incline @comradespiderman29 @lonelysince2006 @To koniec @Seahorsecel @Bianor @Osman279 @_meh @Biowaste Removal
