Five minutes of hate news
- Thread starter PsihoKekec
- Start date
Basically, a slap on the wrist for her given she's a fucking millionaire; a meaningless, forced apology (whether she wrote it personally or not); and YouTube makes off like a bandit by cashing in off her stuff and not actually doing anything, like permanently banning that duplicitous e-whore because she makes them money, despite the fact what she did was illegal and against their very own terms of service.
"One rule for thee, one rule for me, peasants."
I guarantee you that if someone, male or female, turned up outside her home, people and YouTube, for different reasons (simps, cash cows, feminists, et cetera), would flip their shit and create an outrage mob.
Tell me, why are women apparently "oppressed" again?
"One rule for thee, one rule for me, peasants."
I guarantee you that if someone, male or female, turned up outside her home, people and YouTube, for different reasons (simps, cash cows, feminists, et cetera), would flip their shit and create an outrage mob.
Tell me, why are women apparently "oppressed" again?
mrttao
Well-known member
The bigger issue is that they actually punished her victim
That too.
DarthOne
☦️
Women were never oppressed, at least not in the West. They’ve been handled with kid gloves since antiquity.
And the more I see stuff like this the more I look forward to the backlash.
Well,they lost part of their rights which they had in medieval Europe,but the same happened to everybody else except gentry in Poland ,so....
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
The gilded cage treatment is still oppression, if primarily "the bigotry of low expectations". Just because you have a load of gibs doesn't entail that you are free (just look at a surprisingly large chunk of Southern lower-class whites during Antebellum slavery), and historically there has been quite the pile of things women ought not do in the West, with varying kinds and levels of enforcement.
Edit: To my recollection, legal discrimination has mostly been about forcing married women out of public life and into the house, with outright removal of independent property rights arising in several cases. Though also see "the power of the purse" in home finance, where part of this was handling "the family" accounts. It's mostly getting the shorter side of the general strictness of marriage customs, but ignoring that there were in fact freedoms to win is just setting yourself up to get reamed by a mildly historically educated Feminist.
mrttao
Well-known member
> merging assets of husband and wife is enslaving women. even though in reality it just lets them spend their husband money
> having low expectation of someone is oppression
all my keks.
also, please do share with us some of those "enforcements" that forbade women from doing stuff in the west. I mean specific examples not platitudes.
i am not historian,but womans in medieval Europe could be owners of various bussines/for example merchants/,and even blacksmiths,as long as they were good in their trade.
It later changed,and womans gradually could be only wives.
History is a pretty vast thing and how women where treated in one part of the west changed based on circumstances, reigion, and time period. During times of conflict and danger women often stay close to home, during the pandemic I would go out and I wouldn't see any women because of precievd danger.
Like wise during Ancient greece women were often sequestered in the home this is true, but the greek city states were infamous for their almost non stop warfare. I think we often forget that our ansestors were human and that people will do some pretty extreme shit in the name of survival of themselves, their family and their communities.
It was illegal to be,let say,blacksmith anymore,so if some try they would be arrested.Not by police thought,it do not existed yet.> later could only be wives
did the police arrest them if they tried to be something else?
or did they choose to be wives because being a housewife is literally the best job ever conceived in human history.
Another difference - if rich woman married poor man,she could keep her property in medieval times.In Reneissance and later poor man becomed rich man thanks to wife property.
mrttao
Well-known member
do you have any sources showing it was illegal for a woman to be a blacksmith and she was arrested if she tried?
because there were a bunch of examples of female blacksmiths all throughout
Female Blacksmiths in History (Famous Female Blacksmiths) - Working the Flame
Accounts of female blacksmiths in history and females in the blacksmithing trade during the middle ages, colonial period, and modern age.
workingtheflame.com
This "women were arrested if they tried to not be housewife" is, as far as I can tell, just revisionist history by feminists.
It should be noted that smiting is hard dangerous physical labor. Which is basically the last thing 99.999% of women want to do.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
The problem is that it made what incredibly few divorces were allowed through most of the presence of such vastly messier than they had any reason to be. If the woman (more typically her parents) messed up, recourse was nowhere to be found.
Take a look at Antebellum Slavery rhetoric. It does not take much for this to turn into "White Man/Husband knows best" gilded cage-isms.
Section 213 of the Economy Act of 1932. The government's tightening of purse-strings included a clause explicitly requiring that one member of each married couple who both work for the government be fired, with it only not being mandated to be the wife by very narrow margins. This was still the in-practice near-certainty to the point of it being repealed five years layer for this very reason.
While women historically had nominal access to more resources than men, they were rarely allowed to take initiative in using it outside a relatively small selection of upkeep costs and luxuries, and it was nearly always downstream from a man's earnings. Mandatory dependency very much is oppression, even if you usually get pampered, because there's nothing you can do about it if you aren't.
Yinko
Well-known member
Especially in harsher, more rural, areas, where people did whatever they had to do in order to get by. If you are starving you aren't going to tell your wife she can't get a job. Hard times make people pragmatic. You look at the classified ads of the time, women on the frontier were soliciting for good husbands, sight unseen, because stability and complementarity trump romance.
mrttao
Well-known member
and that is a good thing.
divorce is terrible and harms the children immensely for the whims of the parents
frankly, divorce should be classified as child abuse
1. 1932 is the modern era. not medieval times
2. "fired" is not arrested.
3. explicitly does not specify wife according to you. Just that only 1 person per household can work for the govt directly.
4. "work for the govt" specifically which is not "forced to be housewives". They are allowed to start their own business or work for any private organization. they are allowed to work for the govt too. the rule was just "only 1 spouse per household works for govt".
honestly that law sounds like a method to curb nepotism.
Last edited:
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
Realize the strictness was at the point where physical injuries from intensity of intercourse were not grounds to divorce. Hence the shenanigans of Henry the Eighth, who caused a schism for the sole purpose of being able to annul his first marriage over not getting a male heir. It was easier to have his wives executed for treasonous adultery driven in large part by continued absence of a male heir and not quietly drawing back to a submissive role than get annulments accepted by the Pope.
There is quite the gulf between now and then, being quite close to opposite extremes. Just because divorce is so easy as to cause severe social problems now, does not mean having a tiny virtually immutable number of reasons that have nothing to do with health save for sterility is fine.
Note that this is after women's suffrage. Do you seriously think the culture was less restrictive in previous decades?
That's ATP's argument, not mine.
Only narrowly left out, due to pressure from relatively-recently voting women.
It was introduced intending to be kicking wives out to draw down the budget, then later revised to be de jure sex indiscriminate, then repealed over its de facto sex discrimination despite the late-stage de jure change.
Yinko
Well-known member
You can't really use the behavior of monarchs as a metric for culture. Monarchs, like celebrities, push the boundaries of polite society to the breaking point in whatever area they find themselves ensnared. Using Henry IIX as a core example is like saying that any random merchant or blacksmith could lop off his wife's head for not producing a son, which simply isn't true. It's not like the formation of the Church of England was a simple and easy process either, it caused centuries of bloodshed.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
Hence him being the example? Polite society at the time found incestuous adultery not sufficiently infringing on a marriage to be grounds for divorce, meaning he needed to show a separate scripturally-backed reason for annulment of the marriage he had already passed a death sentence on the other participants of.
Yinko
Well-known member
Well, there are two interpretations of that. The first, what most would think, is that the Pope viewed such accusations as fallacious. The second, that "it's only adultery if it's vaginal", was quite a common notion until industrial times. The faster spread of information caused by newspaper and radio made such practices less common and acceptable. I would talk more about that, but it borders on the pornographic, and I can't recall where I read about it so I can't provide sources at the moment.