Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Serious If women were so oppressed and restricted in the past, how come there was never a slave-owning society where only men could own slaves?

  • Thread starter WorthlessSlavicShit
  • Start date
WorthlessSlavicShit

WorthlessSlavicShit

Luminary
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 30, 2022
Posts
10,432
Just something I've noticed reading about various ancient/medieval societies:feelsjuice:. Really makes you think:feelsthink:. 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:feelskek:, why would anybody think that:feelshaha:, 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":feelshaha:, 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:feelsjuice:.

@DarkStarDownsyndrom @Made in Heaven @GeckoBus @OutcompetedByRoomba @based_meme @Epedaphic @decafincel @weaselbomber @CorpseCel @Incline @comradespiderman29 @lonelysince2006 @To koniec @Seahorsecel @Bianor @Osman279 @_meh @Biowaste Removal
 
Just something I've noticed reading about various ancient/medieval societies:feelsjuice:. Really makes you think:feelsthink:. 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:feelskek:, why would anybody think that:feelshaha:, 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":feelshaha:, 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:feelsjuice:.

@DarkStarDownsyndrom @Made in Heaven @GeckoBus @OutcompetedByRoomba @based_meme @Epedaphic @decafincel @weaselbomber @CorpseCel @Incline @comradespiderman29 @lonelysince2006 @To koniec @Seahorsecel @Bianor @Osman279 @_meh @Biowaste Removal
Looks like a nice thread but tag me next time
 
There's a large amount of evidence proving that women could own and trade slaves in the Roman empire.
Even in the Republic they could do it, this was especially common for wives of dead wealthy Romans, as they inherited their wealth.
In a great time of crisis (the second Punic War), so many Roman men died and shitloads of women became rich, and they LOVED to flaunt their wealth to the point where the politicians of the time thought it necessary to create legislation to prevent them from flaunting the wealth of their dead husbands.
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.
I can't tell you about slaves but I can tell you for a fact that they were a quite pussywhipped country.
also influenced early feminism:
Lady Mary Montagu, an early eighteenth century English aristocrat and writer, was one such woman. Her husband served as the British Ambassador to Turkey, allowing her to spend time in the Ottoman Empire and write extensively about her experiences there. In her writings, she explained that the Ottoman women did not lack in their privileges due to their control over property, autonomy in the harem, and sexual liberty through the wearing of veils. Montagu admired Ottoman slave institutions and actively defended them, which was uncommon among British authors at that time. Montagu believed that conditions were worse for women in Europe than they were for women in the harem.
 
Not giving political Power to the general foid population wasn't oppression, It was only the rational thing to do, those whores have literally evolved to betray the society they are in to the stronger invaders, How can you trust Simeone like that
 
Looks like a nice thread but tag me next time
Will do brocel:feelsokman:.

Even in the Republic they could do it, this was especially common for wives of dead wealthy Romans, as they inherited their wealth.
In a great time of crisis (the second Punic War), so many Roman men died and shitloads of women became rich, and they LOVED to flaunt their wealth to the point where the politicians of the time thought it necessary to create legislation to prevent them from flaunting the wealth of their dead husbands.

I can't tell you about slaves but I can tell you for a fact that they were a quite pussywhipped country.
also influenced early feminism:
Interesting info, thanks:feelsstudy:.

Not giving political Power to the general foid population wasn't oppression, It was only the rational thing to do, those whores have literally evolved to betray the society they are in to the stronger invaders, How can you trust Simeone like that
Exactly:yes:.
 
Prophet Muhammad's first wife, khadija, had at least 1 slave herself. Lmao
 
Yeah, even women owned other women as slaves. There's no secret about that, but often that gets sweeped under the rug because women are more "pure" and "pious" than men, and could never do such a horrid or horrible thing like that. Even women undercut other women and compete with each other in some instances. e.g. mates, jobs, status, ...,etc. Still a dog eat dog world for them, but still on easy mode.

I remember one time reading something about a women CEO opening a daycare just for looking after her kid, but not for other women/mothers working under her. I thought that was pretty funny lol.
 
Feminism truly is a Rockefeller master class on brainwashing a nation of 300 million people and many other nations that women had it worse before feminism. Men used to literally go to war and die to protect the women and children of their tribe. JFL
 
For all of the shit that women do, they seem to understand that idea of a group collective benefit. White men are the ONLY group in the world that does not display this en mase.
 
Feminism truly is a Rockefeller master class on brainwashing a nation of 300 million people and many other nations that women had it worse before feminism. Men used to literally go to war and die to protect the women and children of their tribe. JFL
It's easy to brainwash people that don't believe in anything. American culture is just consumerism and maximizing individual ego (dopamine).
 
It's easy to brainwash people that don't believe in anything. American culture is just consumerism and maximizing individual ego (dopamine).
:blackpill: :bigbrain:

Under optimal conditions, minds are extremely malleable. Getting people to abandon the foundation of their existing beliefs is the first step. The easiest way is to get them to abandon any religion they were brought up in, since religions have strong foundations, especially moral (the new atheist movement in recent years was a great step in this direction). Their minds are then made fertile for whatever garbage you have ready to be planted on their mental soil. Then you wait a handful of generations and observe as entire people lose their cultural, national (if they're immigrants), and personal identities and become assimilated into the NPC hivemind you so desire.
 
Women are just as culpable as men in the crimes they commit. It's not so hard to acknowledge that we must go through decades of judicious labors to uncover the truth of sexual equality.
:blackpill: :bigbrain:

Under optimal conditions, minds are extremely malleable. Getting people to abandon the foundation of their existing beliefs is the first step. The easiest way is to get them to abandon any religion they were brought up in, since religions have strong foundations, especially moral (the new atheist movement in recent years was a great step in this direction). Their minds are then made fertile for whatever garbage you have ready to be planted on their mental soil. Then you wait a handful of generations and observe as entire people lose their cultural, national (if they're immigrants), and personal identities and become assimilated into the NPC hivemind you so desire.
The same could be said of indoctrinating children to religions.
 
Not giving political Power to the general foid population wasn't oppression, It was only the rational thing to do, those whores have literally evolved to betray the society they are in to the stronger invaders, How can you trust Simeone like that
 

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top