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.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,081,790 times
Reputation: 11862
Advertisements
While I agree with gender equality and equal rights in all spheres of life between men and women, I'm growing a bit tired of the same old narrative: back in the bad old days, men had so much more freedom, life was so much better for the average man.
I disagree, for the following reason:
Men had other responsibilities. Sure raising kids and doing housework was hard. But so what, going out to labour 14 hours a day to support your children wasn't exactly a cakewalk in comparison.
Two, they're often talking about the privileged minority. In many places male sufferage was restricted to poorer males. In many ways life for a wealthy lady was much better than a poor man. They often lived lives of leisure, for instance.
Third, Wars. Once I was talking with a self-proclaimed feminist who was saying men couldn't know the suffering of women. I mentioned, 'at least women were generally not expected to fight and die in war.' It seemed to tick her off...YES, we KNOW most wars are started by men, but they are started by a group of the elite, I bet plenty of men wanted NOTHING TO DO with fighting in a war (course sometimes they did) from Sumeria to Vietnam...also what about wars started or fought by rulers like Catherine the Great, Elizabeth or earlier the likes of Boudicca (although to her credit her ranks included female warriors and she herself rode into battle)?
Yes, women died in childbirth, but I would rather be a woman in Medieval times than a man, who might go into battle to get his limbs chopped off. Although a life of popping out babies while also being a peasant (yes, rural women in those times often did the same work as men).
Fact is, life is hard for ALL people back then. History is NOT all about men oppressing women, although there was a component of that, simply because men were stronger. Do feminists complain about male gorillas being dominant towards their females in nature? They worship Mother Earth/Nature and that's the way she decreed it...it is they who have a problem with her ways, lol.
Of course I don't really believe in the above, just illustrating a point. Not everything is about men oppressing women and women having it worse off. One should look at it from both angles.
While I agree with gender equality and equal rights in all spheres of life between men and women, I'm growing a bit tired of the same old narrative: back in the bad old days, men had so much more freedom, life was so much better for the average man.
I disagree, for the following reason:
Men had other responsibilities. Sure raising kids and doing housework was hard. But so what, going out to labour 14 hours a day to support your children wasn't exactly a cakewalk in comparison.
Two, they're often talking about the privileged minority. In many places male sufferage was restricted to poorer males. In many ways life for a wealthy lady was much better than a poor man. They often lived lives of leisure, for instance.
Third, Wars. Once I was talking with a self-proclaimed feminist who was saying men couldn't know the suffering of women. I mentioned, 'at least women were generally not expected to fight and die in war.' It seemed to tick her off...YES, we KNOW most wars are started by men, but they are started by a group of the elite, I bet plenty of men wanted NOTHING TO DO with fighting in a war (course sometimes they did) from Sumeria to Vietnam...also what about wars started or fought by rulers like Catherine the Great, Elizabeth or earlier the likes of Boudicca (although to her credit her ranks included female warriors and she herself rode into battle)?
Yes, women died in childbirth, but I would rather be a woman in Medieval times than a man, who might go into battle to get his limbs chopped off. Although a life of popping out babies while also being a peasant (yes, rural women in those times often did the same work as men).
Fact is, life is hard for ALL people back then. History is NOT all about men oppressing women, although there was a component of that, simply because men were stronger. Do feminists complain about male gorillas being dominant towards their females in nature? They worship Mother Earth/Nature and that's the way she decreed it...it is they who have a problem with her ways, lol.
Of course I don't really believe in the above, just illustrating a point. Not everything is about men oppressing women and women having it worse off. One should look at it from both angles.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,081,790 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by pamelaBeurman
How old are you? And yes, it's relevant.
No, I don't remember the 'bad old days' if that's what you're implying. Or if you're questioning my maturity level, I wish you'd not try to bring my person into it but just try to discuss the topic at hand. Which part of what I'm saying do you wish to dispute?
No I'm not a chauvinist in disguise, far from it. As a kid it used to annoy me how male-dominated things seemed to be. But I also realised things were a wee bit more complicated than 'good guys and bad guys.'
Wealthy or not, women by law were the husband's property. Since there weren't employment options for women, if a woman was widowed, she was at risk of starving. She either had to find a single man to marry, or take in laundry to survive. Or turn to the world's oldest profession. There were no widow's benefits until FDR invented Social Security. Battering and even murders of wives occurred due to alcoholism. The women's temperance movement and prohibition were an attempt to save women's lives by curbing alcohol use by men.
Death in childbirth wasn't the only problem. Without birth control, women were constantly pregnant. It wasn't unusual in the colonial period and for many generations after, for women to have 11 or 12 kids. The women would often die of exhaustion after all those pregnancies, so the men would marry a young 20-something, and start over again, with another family of 10 or more kids. I discovered this when I did a family genealogy.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,081,790 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
Wealthy or not, women by law were the husband's property. Since there weren't employment options for women, if a woman was widowed, she was at risk of starving. She either had to find a single man to marry, or take in laundry to survive. Or turn to the world's oldest profession. There were no widow's benefits until FDR invented Social Security. Battering and even murders of wives occurred due to alcoholism. The women's temperance movement and prohibition were an attempt to save women's lives by curbing alcohol use by men.
Death in childbirth wasn't the only problem. Without birth control, women were constantly pregnant. It wasn't unusual in the colonial period and for many generations after, for women to have 11 or 12 kids. The women would often die of exhaustion after all those pregnancies, so the men would marry a young 20-something, and start over again, with another family of 10 or more kids. I discovered this when I did a family genealogy.
War is hell. No argument there.
Yeah really being a woman sounds equally unappealing in that era, lol. Also things like widows in India being burned with their husbands, how effed up is that?
Life was pretty hard for everyone, I guess. Poor men who also the property of their landlords, for instance, or say slaves.
No, I don't remember the 'bad old days' if that's what you're implying. Or if you're questioning my maturity level, I wish you'd not try to bring my person into it but just try to discuss the topic at hand. Which part of what I'm saying do you wish to dispute?
No I'm not a chauvinist in disguise, far from it. As a kid it used to annoy me how male-dominated things seemed to be. But I also realised things were a wee bit more complicated than 'good guys and bad guys.'
No, I wasn't questioning your maturity level. Age really has little to do with maturity anyway.
Who had it easier, hmmmm? I guess that depends on which scenic overlook you're standing at. But, I can only speak from mine.
I'm gonna be 56 on Tuesday, but it's a young 56.
I first married at 18. At that time women were still expected to defer to their husbands quite a bit. They made most of the decisions. They went to work in the morning, came home in the evenings, ate dinner and sat on their asses till bedtime. On the weekends, they cut the grass.
For the most part, women stayed home. We cooked, cleaned, shopped, did laundry, took care of the children, ran errands, just so the menfolk could come home to clean kids, a spotless house and dinner on the table. Way too Ozzie and Harriet for me. The first marriage didn't last all that long.
The truth is, it's subjective. Both women and men were taken care of. They supported us financially, we kept their lives running on schedule and fairly trouble free.
There was a price though. Women were treated as second class citizens, jobs in certain fields were not available to many of us, we were paid less for equal work ( still are ), promotions were rare.............
No, I wasn't questioning your maturity level. Age really has little to do with maturity anyway.
Who had it easier, hmmmm? I guess that depends on which scenic overlook you're standing at. But, I can only speak from mine.
I'm gonna be 56 on Tuesday, but it's a young 56.
I first married at 18. At that time women were still expected to defer to their husbands quite a bit. They made most of the decisions. They went to work in the morning, came home in the evenings, ate dinner and sat on their asses till bedtime. On the weekends, they cut the grass.
For the most part, women stayed home. We cooked, cleaned, shopped, did laundry, took care of the children, ran errands, just so the menfolk could come home to clean kids, a spotless house and dinner on the table. Way too Ozzie and Harriet for me. The first marriage didn't last all that long.
The truth is, it's subjective. Both women and men were taken care of. They supported us financially, we kept their lives running on schedule and fairly trouble free.
There was a price though. Women were treated as second class citizens, jobs in certain fields were not available to many of us, we were paid less for equal work ( still are ), promotions were rare.............
Like I said, it depends on your point of view.
Did you ever have your own checking account? A cousin of mine couldn't have a checking account without a male relative signing for it. I'm not sure, but I think the same thing happened later, when she wanted her own credit card.
Did you ever have your own checking account? A cousin of mine couldn't have a checking account without a male relative signing for it. I'm not sure, but I think the same thing happened later, when she wanted her own credit card.
My mother couldn't buy a house in her own name, had to have my father on it.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,081,790 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by pamelaBeurman
No, I wasn't questioning your maturity level. Age really has little to do with maturity anyway.
Who had it easier, hmmmm? I guess that depends on which scenic overlook you're standing at. But, I can only speak from mine.
I'm gonna be 56 on Tuesday, but it's a young 56.
I first married at 18. At that time women were still expected to defer to their husbands quite a bit. They made most of the decisions. They went to work in the morning, came home in the evenings, ate dinner and sat on their asses till bedtime. On the weekends, they cut the grass.
For the most part, women stayed home. We cooked, cleaned, shopped, did laundry, took care of the children, ran errands, just so the menfolk could come home to clean kids, a spotless house and dinner on the table. Way too Ozzie and Harriet for me. The first marriage didn't last all that long.
The truth is, it's subjective. Both women and men were taken care of. They supported us financially, we kept their lives running on schedule and fairly trouble free.
There was a price though. Women were treated as second class citizens, jobs in certain fields were not available to many of us, we were paid less for equal work ( still are ), promotions were rare.............
Like I said, it depends on your point of view.
I agree as a whole women were disadvantaged, definitely. But I'm talking about the lives of actual people, men and women.
Like a working class man back then were also denied many opportunities...even a middle class man, being expected to be the breadwinner is also a form of 'oppression' if you look at it the other way.
But I'm not saying it's worse, not at all. As you say, it's a matter of perspective. Apples and oranges.
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.
