Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
even then some women still struck out on their own, it was rare but it happened. I guess that was like taking neither the poop nor the turd and just choosing the bread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyphorx
There were career women back then, there were actresses, writers, outlaws the list goes on.
the difference I was looking at was in mate selection. women who chose careers were just out of the courting pool with few exceptions. people marrying within their social class insured most men had a fair shot at love and happiness.
Exactly rare and some.
If women could get jobs they were paid less than men. For a long time, I can remember this, there were women's jobs listings and men's jobs listings. Single women could not get their own credit. It was financially difficult for a single woman to live on her own.
You have a hefty dose of entitlement if you feel the world should work to insure that men have a fair shot at love and happiness at the expense of the other half of the population.
See this is what you guys are missing. You want to see the prefeminist marriage as something that men wanted and victimized women because of it. But it really wasnt all like that, despite feminized history version youve been taught. Every men was taught to respect women, to aid them when they were in need, to take care of them, to make sure their needs were met. Take for example the concept of women not being able to vote in the past.
While true, it is rarely mentioned in the context that poorer men werent able to vote either. Not only that, a man who was head of the family, voted WITH HIS WIFE'S AND HIS ENTIRE FAMILIY'S WELL BEING IN MIND. It wasnt just so he could have it easier, it was to ensure that his family was well taken care of, and his wife being the most important part of that. If women were so oppressed, can you explain to me why for centuries when a boat was sinking, they were the first along with children to be put on the life boats to safety? Is that how victims of oppression are treated in your mind? Or do you guys simply accept history rewritten by feminists as reality, without even questioning their nonsense. You tell me.
Wistful regret about the passing of bygone times is not productive for remedying present ills. But I'm as guilty as anyone here in indulging in such daydreaming. It's ineffectual, but it's oh-so-therapeutic!
What the present demands is first and foremost adroit social-skills in interaction between men and women. In the not too distant past, contact between men and women who were unrelated to each other was limited. Most assuredly, competition isn't new. Men have always competed for mates. But men competed with other men, and needed to hone the social skills of negotiation, cooperation, conflict-management and so forth... between men.
The great novelty of the modern age is that now there's inter-gender interaction. The consequences are profound for romantic relationships, but also for school and for the workplace. Until a few generations ago, schools tended to segregate men and women. The workplace was almost exclusively a man's world. "Dating", to the extent that it even occurred, was highly scripted and chaperoned. To succeed with women, a man had to succeed… amongst other men. Now male-on-male success, so to speak, is neither necessary nor sufficient. I might outearn the other guy, I might be able to beat up the other guy, but if he is personally more appealing to the woman in question, then his suit will be successful, and mine will fail.
Bottom line: men who do well in the world of men, but are clueless with women, would have done better in the past, than in the present. That world is gone.
See this is what you guys are missing. You want to see the prefeminist marriage as something that men wanted and victimized women because of it. But it really wasnt all like that, despite feminized history version youve been taught. Every men was taught to respect women, to aid them when they were in need, to take care of them, to make sure their needs were met. Take for example the concept of women not being able to vote in the past.
While true, it is rarely mentioned in the context that poorer men werent able to vote either. Not only that, a man who was head of the family, voted WITH HIS WIFE'S AND HIS ENTIRE FAMILIY'S WELL BEING IN MIND. It wasnt just so he could have it easier, it was to ensure that his family was well taken care of, and his wife being the most important part of that. If women were so oppressed, can you explain to me why for centuries when a boat was sinking, they were the first along with children to be put on the life boats to safety? Is that how victims of oppression are treated in your mind? Or do you guys simply accept history rewritten by feminists as reality, without even questioning their nonsense. You tell me.
LOL, OMG you are such a hoot.
No one is claiming victim hood, we are stating facts about the conditions of women in the past and agreeing we as women do not care to go back to that.
Exactly rare and some.
If women could get jobs they were paid less than men. For a long time, I can remember this, there were women's jobs listings and men's jobs listings. Single women could not get their own credit. It was financially difficult for a single woman to live on her own.
You have a hefty dose of entitlement if you feel the world should work to insure that men have a fair shot at love and happiness at the expense of the other half of the population.
Yes and there were still exceptions, granted when you look up those exceptions they were usually unattractive women from wealthy families with no male heirs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
