AVfM Classics: the myth of women’s oppression

Forty some odd years ago, feminists bellowed their way into mainstream attention, launching a major offensive on what they called a patriarchal system that had oppressed women for centuries. Painting women as downtrodden and powerless, they railed against men with the missionary zeal of abolitionists and with largely the same message. In short, women were slaves and men were their masters. They demanded liberation and have been making demands every since.

They did a magnificent job of pitching all this. That could be a testament to the inherent truth in their ideas. Or it might be something else, like the fact that they already had so much power that few were willing to question anything they said in the first place. You can put your money on the latter, because even a remotely objective examination of the facts leads to a far more reasonable conclusion. Women were never oppressed to begin with. Not even close.

I’m no historian, but I did attend some history classes before I finished middle school. So, by the time I was 13, I knew what oppression was. And lucky for me I was 13 in a time when people still knew what it wasn’t.

Oppression has some pretty obvious tell tale signs. Like torture and death; like bullwhips and chains; gas chambers and death camps. Oppression is a roadmap of scars on the back of a field hand that was purchased at an auction. It is the rope that gets strung over a tree branch in broad daylight and used to choke the life out of someone convicted of being the wrong color.

It is an indelible stain on humanity, void of compassion, dehumanizing to both the oppressed and the oppressor. And the evidence of it is so offensive to modern sensibilities that we preserve proof of it as lessons for the coming generations.

Now, when we compare those things to the historical world of women, which was largely one of being protected and provided for, we get an entirely different picture. It is a portrait not of the oppressed, but of the privileged. And it begs a good many questions that need to be answered.

For instance, how many times in history did we have slaves with the first rights to a seat in the lifeboat? Which slave masters were compelled to go off to war to protect the lives of their slaves? How many oppressors tore their own bodies down with brutal labor so that they could provide food and shelter for those they oppressed?

Zero sounds like a good answer.

It also makes one wonder, or should, how many slave masters had to get on their knees before their prospective slaves, bearing gold and jewels to ask permission to be their master? How many slaves could say “no” and wait for a better deal?

How about another goose egg?

It’s not coincidental that feminists pointed to marriage as an oppressive institution. Pointing at nothing and making a lot of noise has worked pretty well for them. And so, in a collective fit of neurotic activism they attacked the one institution that had served as the source of more support and protection for women than any other in history. They became obsessed with depicting a walk down the wedding isle as the path to oppression; each woman’s personal Trail of Tears. You couldn’t buy this kind of crazy if you were Bill Gates.

“Hey!” some feminists are shrieking by now, “What about voting rights? Women were not allowed to vote! That’s oppression!” Well, no, it’s not. And all we need to do is look at the history of voting in America to prove it.

In the beginning, almost no one could vote. It was a right reserved for a few older white males who owned land, which left almost all men and a lot of other people out of the picture. This doesn’t say anything particularly special about women. So if this constituted oppression, then it meant that nearly everyone was oppressed. Maybe the early Americans didn’t catch on to that one because they were too busy celebrating their new found freedom.

Anyway, as time passed, because men of good values wrote an amazing constitution, voting rights were expanded to other groups. First to the men who didn‘t own land, then later to other ethnic groups, then still later to (white) women. Further down the road, black women and men were finally guaranteed the vote in 1965. Even further down the road the voting age was lowered bringing another large group of people into the fold. And today we are debating the voting rights of illegal aliens. Formerly oppressed hamsters may be next.

And we should consider that there was something of a tradeoff for women regarding the vote. Like exclusion from combat and men compelled to turn over the fruit of their labors and to die for them at the drop of a hat. Perhaps it wasn’t a fair tradeoff, mainly to the men. But proof of women’s oppression? Comedians pay for material that isn’t nearly this funny.

The same was true for owning land. Plenty of women weren’t allowed to…for a while, anyway. It probably had something to do with the fact that it was men who had to have land on which to build women homes, or perhaps they figured that men who were expected to face bullets in order to protect that land might be better, more deserving keepers of it. Who knows what insanity plagued us before feminism restored us to reason?

Whatever the reasons, those rules weren’t long lived. Besides, not being able to own land was pretty much softened by the fact that women could choose men to provide it for them through that oppressive institution of marriage, and the phallocentric, linear thinking alleged tyrants that they married.

I am old enough to remember well the older rules for men. Work hard and take care of your woman. Be prepared to lay down your life for her. Watch your mouth in the presence of a lady. Offer her your seat, even if she is a stranger. The same for opening doors and lighting smokes. Disrespect her and risk a beating. Touch her in the wrong way and you’re a dead man.

This isn’t the way oppressed people are treated. But we do have another word for those fortunate enough to benefit from these kinds of standards. Royalty. We didn’t coin the term “princess” for women without a good reason.

With a few trivial exceptions, this has always been the gold standard for the treatment of women. The fact that this is beginning to change, that men are starting to put the brakes on doing a lot of things out of chivalry, is just another example of feminism shooting women in the foot. Accidents happen, especially self inflicted wounds, to people that play with guns when they don’t know what they’re doing.

Still, I have to hand it to feminists in their capacity to spin a wild yarn. Taking a privileged class of people and convincing the world that they were picked on was a masterful piece of skullduggery. But it was only successful because the mandate for men in western culture has always been to give women whatever they want without much question. Otherwise, the plethora of feminist ideas would have buckled under the oppressive weight of unchecked dishonesty.

Nonetheless, our unhealthy enabling of them set the stage for women to pass up men in every aspect of life. Women are now more educated than men and they also have most of the jobs. Nothing suggests this is going to do anything but favor women even more in the future. All that from an ideology that resides a house of cards that only remains standing because the wind itself has been scared out of blowing it down.

I would offer the feminists my kudos for shrewd work and a job well done, but winning a race is easy when you start with one foot already across the finish line, and everyone else pretends not to notice.

  • Hayden Eric Johnston

    Problem is, historians don’t claim historical female oppression, it’s a purely feminist claim & now those claims influence the masses.

    Which I believe Paul even spends a fair amount of time discussing in the above article, about how female privilege is the reason it was so easy for feminists to get their “historical oppression” narrative accepted without question in the first place.

    Check your privilege woman!

  • driversuz

    They did and they were, usually upper class women.

  • driversuz

    Women have always been oppressed, but not by men and not more than men.

  • driversuz

    Both women and men have always been oppressed by women and men of more powerful classes.

  • driversuz

    Upper and middle class women often “had a choice to diverge from the norm was allowed to and (were) respected for it.” Feminists frequently brag about such women while simultaneously denying their existence.

  • driversuz

    Um, no. Learn some history.

  • driversuz

    Of course women weren’t excluded from oppression, then again their men protected them from as much of it as they possibly could…
    Why do you ask? Did I say no woman in history was ever oppressed, or did I say that women as a class were never oppressed by men as a class?
    You’re a troll and you’ll be leaving soon.

  • driversuz

    I’ll be impressed when you come up with some objective proof of that. You can’t.

  • driversuz

    You call that “objective?”

    • Charles Ray

      Do you find the information in it false?

  • Pauli

    As a woman, I love this article and I completely agree! Thank you for reminding us of the great respect and privileges we had BEFORE feminism. Sadly and ironically, we have lost some of it because of feminism! Women stopped acting like ladies and refused to be treated as such, so many men followed suit and stopped being gentlemen…and that’s why our society is steadily going downhill.

  • DeBorah

    Oppression, violence, discrimination….all unacceptable when any human suffers them. It is important in discussions like this to note the limited perspectives that “history” is written from. Further important is the necessity of the collaboration of many, socially and culturally diverse perspectives to see the true picture in its entirety, a luxury we have not had in the past. I wonder if green youngsters, much like this author once was, sitting in their future classrooms will receive a more well-rounded view of what the world was like due to the collaborative nature of the Internet. I can only hope so. Maybe then they will truly grow to be informed individuals rather than folks working with only a fraction of the truth. How many stories in your history books were written by women? We can not honestly understand what their plight must have been like without their personal accounts. Nonetheless, we banter here about how ludicrous the few voices who made it through the deafening din of masculinity were.

    I value both genders for their strengths and acknowledge their differences. But to claim that there is no such thing as oppression on women is the same as saying men have never been oppressed. Both equally immature arguments. Humans, all genders, ages, races and creeds, at some point or another, have been oppressed, treated unjustly and taken for granted by another. Your article only balloons the problem of issues like reverse sexism you seem to be so adamant about preventing. To deny the plight of any individual is to deny their right to fair, just treatment. It would behoove you and others who feel the need to deny another human being their struggles to consider what it might be like for someone to do the same to you.

    I’ll let another make a more elaborate response to this ungodly banter:

    • DeBorah

      I might add further comment when I share:
      The film is available via Netflix streaming or can be purchased online. If you’re truly interested in a full understanding of the subject you’re writing on, I recommend you give yourself the gift of insight and take the time to watch.

      • Astrokid

        Half the Sky is bollocks. for e.g The White Knight Nick Kristof was humiliated recently after his Cambodian protagonist Somaly Mam was exposed to be a fraud.

        And funnily.. 3rd world feminists themselves dont like Western White Woman feminism, and have told you to shove it.

        Although a few passing comments are made about rape, coerced sex work, and other gender-based violence existing everywhere in the world–including in the U.S., hello?!–the point that is consistently reiterated in the film is that gender oppression is “worse” in “these countries”–that it is a part of “their culture.” In fact, at one point, on the issue of female genital cutting, Kristof tells actress Diane Lane, “That may be [their] culture, but it’s also a pretty lousy aspect of culture.”

        There’s nothing that smacks more of “us and them” talk than these sorts of statements about “their culture.” Postcultural critic Gayatri Chakrovorty Spivak, in fact, coined the term “white men saving brown women from brown men” to describe the imperialist use of women’s oppression as justification for political aggression.

        Although Spivak was writing about British bans of widow burning and child marriage in India to make her point, we can see the reflections of this dynamic is the way that the US has justified wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as missions to “free Islamic women from the Veil.” (For a fantastic critique of this rationale, see Lila Abu-Lughod’s “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?“) According to Spivak, this trope of “white men rescuing brown women from brown men” becomes used to justify the imperialist project of “white man” over “brown man.”

        • DeBorah

          I do not believe the US ought to be condemning any culture for their beliefs. In terms of the definition of oppression (you can find it here: the sense of being oppressed is in the opinion of those both in and outside of the situation. Arguing that women do not have the right to claim oppression is, again, to deny them their valid opinion of what they are experiencing. Traveling around the world and telling other cultures they need to stop oppressing their women is just as bad as telling those who feel oppressed that they are not. I think you miss the point when I express that oppression happens to men, women and children all over the planet. I think its part of human nature to struggle with the desire to conquer things and other people. It makes us feel powerful, most certainly, but at the expense of those we impress ourselves upon.
          Yes, I do believe children were oppressed and still are. Not being given a voice is one of the most subtle, quite damaging aspects of oppression. If someone believes they are not oppressed, then they should be allowed to continue life as is. If someone feels oppressed, they should have the opportunity to remove themselves from the people or system by which they are being oppressed. Simple as that. There are women represented in Half The Sky who believe the act of genital mutilation is oppressive and a violation of their body. Others condone the practice and do not wish to change it. Does this mean that the women who feel they are being treated unjustly are wrong? Of course not. Yet that seems to be the argument you’re making against women who feel they are oppressed. Please correct me if I am wrong.
          Arguing that a historian “must have been drunk” does little to help your point and is a ad hominen fallacy adding no credibility to your argument. Nor does poor spelling in an attempt, I assume, to mock something you think a feminist might say. I personally, do not consider myself a feminist- a humanist, maybe.

          • Astrokid

            I think you miss the point when I express that oppression happens to men, women and children all over the planet.

            No I dont. I am waiting for you to show us feminist or mainstream publicity of things oppressive to men, esp where the perpetrator is women. There are many ways women are oppressive to children. I am waiting for you to talk about that. Each time you produce links only to womens “oppression” at the hands of men (like Half the Sky, and Howard Zinn).

            And Re: watching Half The Sky.. I am FROM the 3rd world.. I grew up in India and now live in the US. I am well aware of how life is there, for men as well..and for various under-classes. Retards like Nick Kristof will never even begin to understand the whole picture, and I am not interested in Western interference or even “understanding from afar”. centuries of Western colonialism leaves a lasting legacy.

          • DeBorah

            Let’s start with these. I’m sure you could personally find more if you looked for yourself.



            Again, oppression is essentially unjust treatment of another. Unjust in the opinion of that person as well as in the eyes of the group. Both can be valid classifications of oppression. Men’s oppression is unfortunately not an issue that people are ready to face yet. Especially that of white, middle-class men. Though the bullying that happens in the school yard, the expectations set by women upon men to behave a certain way, the verbal abuse received by parents and peers alike when men or boys do not act as expected…these are all oppressive acts to the individual and, as widespread and accepted as they are, to the gender as a whole. But just because they are accepted does not mean it is still not oppressive.

            I do not understand, if you’ve seen the oppression some women face, how you can say that women have not been oppressed. Do you believe that every woman you saw enduring some form of, what I would consider, unjust treatment, thought the treatment to be just? Did you ask them? Are you simply arguing that feminism can be taken to an unnecessary extreme? I would agree with you. But the same harm that people seem so enraged about in regards to this exaggeration is done when you deny that oppression has ever happened at all. I am saying that this article and many of these comments below are both fallacies and exaggerations, none of which do any good to address the issue of unjust treatment of our fellow human beings.

          • Astrokid

            Let me get this straight..
            For examples of women’s oppression, you pull out widely circulated mainstream documentaries, such as PBS that seeps into the masses’ consciousness.

            For examples of mens oppression, you pull out obscure academic books by hardcore gender-feminist Harry Brod who is acrtually a critic of masculinity.. i.e as something bad about men that impacts women.. and is never a critic of femininity. And you pull out dissident-feminist CHSommers book.. the war against boys.. which is hated by mainstream feminists, and is even mocked on TV for last 2 decades, including MSNBC in the last few months.

            Again, oppression is essentially unjust treatment of another.

            No. You are not allowed to water down the word as you wish, merriam-webster notwithstanding. Throughout history there has always been ‘unjust’ treatment. At this rate, everybody is oppressed and that becomes meaningless. Holocaust sufferers were unjustly treated. Black slaves in America too. Workers in coalmines too. Blue collar workers too. I was unjustly treated in my job a few years ago when I was underpaid. It would be silly of me to say I was oppressed.

            In fact, this is the ‘Wide Redefinition fallacy’.
            We need a range to words to describe different degrees of oppression.
            We have milder words like discrimination that describes what you say.

            Men’s oppression is unfortunately not an issue that people are ready to face yet.

            Amen. And thats what mens rights is all about. And thats what this site is about. And your feminist sisters are standing in the way. We have had 50+ years of feminism acting politically making change after change for women, often making it worse for men. There is a zero-sum game in some things.. for e.g divorce proceedings.
            If mens oppression is not an issue that people are ready to face, thats more damning and dangerous.

          • DeBorah

            I apologize. Since I don’t watch television I wouldn’t have seen these pieces you’re talking about. I pulled up examples that I found through a simple search, as I did with women’s oppression. As I mentioned, main stream media doesn’t acknowledge the oppression of men with the same vigor as it does that of women. But you decline to comment on the other article referring to the oppression of gay men. Does that not constitute oppression? I still argue that, at some point men, women and children have been discriminated against on a mass scale, thus equating oppression. Nor do you respond to any of my questions.

            Are you denying that women, enmass have ever been oppressed?

          • driversuz

            Are you denying that women, enmass have ever been oppressed?

            Not one bit more than men. Indeed probably less, since we as a species and a culture are more sympathetic to oppressed women than to oppressed men.

          • Mr. E

            “Again, oppression is essentially unjust treatment of another. ”

            I think that you would need to amend this to be something like “Oppression is the systemic unjust treatment of another.” Anybody can be an asshole and that doesn’t make them “oppressive” per se, just an asshole.

          • Bora Bosna

            Once again, it means that women as a group have not been oppressed. Does not mean that no woman was ever oppressed.

          • DeBorah

            I produce links to women’s oppression because that was the basis for the article and the thing that folks are claiming does not exist. Yes, women also oppress children… as do men. That’s the whole point. Saying oppression does not exist is simply not true. Or saying that men are not oppressing anybody but women are or feminists are is just as silly as the argument extremists from the other side are making about men.

          • Bora Bosna

            Men as a group are not oppressing anyone, neither are women as a group. Some men and some women oppress. Feminists as a group oppress pretty much everyone except themselves.

          • DeBorah

            I would challenge you to post a reply without name-calling, mocking or exaggerating. Are you not acting just as Western colonialists did in understanding from afar, as a foreigner yourself? I think everyone is entitled to their opinion, though I believe that opinions based on personal experience offer more rich fodder for a real discussion on topics like this.

          • Astrokid M57

            I would challenge you to post a reply without exaggerating womens oppression, or imagining that someone is calling you names or mocking you.
            I guess you have not absorbed that I live in the US (for well over a decade now). I have a reasonably good understanding of its history and society, good enough to have been made a Moderator on this website, a flagship of mens rights.

            Are you not acting like a Western colonialist by treating me as an outsider?

          • DeBorah

            Again, I think we’re arguing semantics here. I have not been treating you like an outsider, I simply thought it reasonable to point out the contradiction in your statement condemning colonialists style of “understanding from afar” (which I completely agree with) then telling me that you were “from afar”. There most certainly still lives a cultural gap between your background and someone who has grown up here, its just a fact of how we are encultured as children. It does not mean I value your perspective any less. However it is important to take differences into account. As a woman who has experienced physical, verbal and sexual abuse repeatedly through her lifetime, I think its important we do not deny the pain some women experience. Do I think we should blame all men for it? Of course not. Do I think we should pretend like it doesn’t happen? Absolutely not.
            I didn’t say I was being mocked, I was pointing out your misspelled commentary that I assumed was an attempt at mockery of some general female voice. Calling me a troll is certainly uncalled for.

          • Bora Bosna

            No, opinions based on personal experience are not facts and are usually filled with biases and logical errors. Feminists made an entire industry out of treating opinions based on personal experience as facts. “If I feel raped I must be raped right?”

        • DeBorah

          Did you actually watch the film to see the women who expressed their personal perspective? Could be an eye opening experience for you.

    • Astrokid


      It is possible, reading standard histories, to forget half the population of the country. The explorers were men, the landholders and merchants men, the political leaders men, the military figures men. The very invisibility of women, the overlooking of women, is a sign of their submerged status.

      Children were also not “mentioned” much in history. That doesnt mean they were oppressed. And even after 50+ years of 2-nd wave feminism, the great explorers, inventors etc are still 99% men. The people who build dams, fight fire, fight in combat roles are 99% men. Heck.. even the great painters, chess players, music composers are 99% men. Just face it.. women were happy let men do all the extra-hard yards throughout history.. and only after freeways, air-conditioning, cars, had been invented.. they came into the public square full-time. If we write the history of the last 50 years, it will still be dominated by men. And there will be the occasional mention of women, just like Marie Curie, Florence Nightingale were mentioned in pre-feminist times.
      Howard Zinn must have been drunk, or just another White Knight.

      And you mentioned that men were also oppressed. So.. why dont you tell us how men were oppressed, and whats being done to solve that today.

      We never hear that in feminism.. except in some bullshit’ty way Patriarchy hurts the menz too , and the way to solve it is moar feminism. grovel harder for Team Vagina.

    • driversuz

      Nobody at AVfM believes that women have never been oppressed. What we understand is that women have never been oppressed *by men* or more than men. “Patriarchy Theory is a myth that would simply not have been believed even a hundred years ago, when most women were much closer to the dangers from which they require men’s protection.

      • DeBorah

        As our world changes, there is a need for structural change in our culture to adapt to the social and environmental changes occurring. Women and men no longer hold the roles they once did when we lived in small villages, exposed to wild animals and hunting and gathering every day for food. Patriarchy theory is not a myth. Our culture has been predominantly shaped and controlled by men. That was a product of how our social structure has been for a long while now. Does that mean that women were never and are not now oppressed by men in specific situations? Of course not. I don’t understand your point when you say “Nobody at AVfM believes that women have never been oppressed. What we understand is that women have never been oppressed *by men* or more than men.” So you do believe women have been oppressed but not by men? Then, pray tell, who? I would argue they’ve certainly been oppressed by each other, their churches, their government, even their medical professionals. These include, however, both men and women doing the oppressing.

        • driversuz

          The powerful oppress the powerless. Duh. You are mistaken if you think women have always been powerless. Men’s power has always been nominal and ceremonial, and they have used it primarily to attain resources for their families to use, largely at the discretion of the women who managed the homes.
          Oppression is not a genedered issue. The suggestion that it is, is a lie made up by 19th and 20th century feminists.
          You are basing your world view on presumed “facts” that are not factual, but are instead manipulated subjective perceptions.
          You may be sincere but you are being intellectually dishonest and you are behaving suspiciously like a troll. You don’t get to come here and demand that we poor misguided innocents pay attention to your preachings. We’ve heard it all before and we’ve refuted it. I would suggest that before you comment further, you “educate yourself” by reading a few more articles, particularly the ones by Peter Wright and Robert St. Estephe. They will give you an eye opening and well documented new perspective on the myth of women’s oppression.

          • DeBorah

            You are more than welcome to your own subjective perception, just as I am to mine. The beauty of an age when so many differing opinions meet on the battlefield of the internet is that there are valid, scientificly conducted explorations of just about every side of any matter. I appreciate that your point of view is different from mine and attempt to respect it by leaving name calling or belittling out of the discussion. Unfortunately it seems to be a favorite tactic of forums like these. Hence why I typically avoid them altogether. However, I’m taking a course required by my university on gender and oppression. In searching for articles for an assignment I came across this site. I was intrigued by the article and hoped to have adecent discourse with someone about it. I’ve thus received some quite interesting information that I intend to further investigate for myself. But, if by calling me a “troll” you are suggesting that I am here just to goad a reaction then you are mistaken. I find the opinion of this piece to be worth discussing further and would love to talk about it with someone who can carry a conversation without needing to use name calling and general fallacies to defend their point. In fact, explaining their point with some level of thoroughness would be pretty durn cool if you ask me (:
            I do not claim that all women have always been powerless, rather that many have expressed their desire for more or different power and have been denied by those already holding these higher ranks. For much of our history, that has been men. Oppression is a byproduct of the pressure caused by impending change. A group must push through it before they can gain higher footing. It is a perfectly reasonable request for women to ask for the things they have. It is unfortunate that they were meet with such opposition. This is what I consider the gender based oppression that folks here are denying exists. Would you call it something different?

          • driversuz

            The difference between your “opinion” and mine, is that yours is based on carefully edited “history,” and biased fake definitions. Mine is based on fact. Men and women are not different social classes of people, because men and women do and always have occupied all social classes.
            We welcome discussion, but we have no use for lectures treating mythology as fact. It’s rather like a child interrupting grownups to explain to them the taxonomy of unicorns. As I suggested, you should read some of the REAL history of relations between the sexes – the parts of history you won’t see in a university.

          • DeBorah

            Golly. The taxonomy of unicorns? I simply don’t know how to respond to that. I think it’s worth calling the Guinness Book of World Records for most creative insults. Your opinion must be fact, mine sheer buffoonery.

          • driversuz

            Your opinions are based on information which has been debunked. And instead of investigating the nature of that debunking, you are (unlike a serious scholar) derailing like a Look-At-Me Troll. This is your warning to either engage seriously, or leave.

          • DeBorah

            Do you threaten everyone who comments on this site who does not appear scholarly? You’ve clearly made assumptions about my motives and I apologize if my discussion isn’t to your liking but I’m genuinely attempting to engage in a conversation with folks about this topic. You don’t have to engage with me yourself.

          • driversuz

            We don’t permit anyone to spread debunked feminist lies on this site. You can do that just about anywhere else on the internet. If your goal is to disseminate feminist dogma under the guise of “discussion,” good luck. You will be shut down by other commenters and/or banned.

          • DeBorah

            Clearly this space is just as biased as the extreme feminist sites. Not surprising, I suppose.

          • driversuz

            Our only bias is against lies and gynocentrism, both of which you can get anywhere else.

          • DeBorah

            Personal expressions of unjust treatment are not lies. My opinion and thoughts on the topic are also not lies. Maybe you ought to consider scrolling through the rest of the comments and taking your anger out on others who are also expressing their views. I imagine you’ll find the ones that are not in line with yours to be particularly enraging.

          • driversuz

            Personal expressions that are informed by lies are worth nothing, except to the deluded party offering them. Goodbye Troll.

          • DeBorah

            The way a person feels about an act made upon them is worth a great deal. One person may feel that getting into a physical altercation with their spouse is run of the mill, another sees it as abuse and unjust treatment. Each is entitled to their own opinion. Those that seek refuge from perceived that deserve compassion and those that do not should not be forced to receive help they do not want. It doesn’t matter where their information came from, what matters is the way it makes them feel. It breaks my heart to read the words you post that seemingly convey no heart for the plight of others unless you personally think their plight is informed by what you think is fact. It was once thought that the world being flat was a fact. We can really only do our best to interpret the information we receive and use the resources we have to understand and integrate it. The belief that your facts are the only true facts is the kind of arrogance that breeds the very oppression you’re so ready to deny. Maybe that’s why it’s so hard to accept.

          • driversuz

            Strike 1: This is a friendly warning that you may need to re-read our Comment Policy, in particular the bits about derailing and trolling. [Ref: 2185]

          • DeBorah

            Thank you, I have and I’m not in violation of anything. Though its clear that you are not interested in having a discussion with me so we can leave it here.

          • driversuz

            Strike 2: This is a friendly warning that you may need to re-read our Comment Policy, in particular the bits about derailing and trolling. [Ref: 2193]

            Additional remarks:

            Can’t comprehend comment policy

          • Leibfarce

            There is no discussion to be had with you.

            You DO buy into a biased, ideological view of history.

            If you give in to the truth, and now your spoiled, selfish, self important perception of it, you will feel much better.

          • Astrokid

            Why didnt you tell us that you were a student at the beginning itself? I suspect the reason Suz thought of as a typical feminist troll.. is because your line of arguments were just indistinguishable from them.

            While the word troll is too generic, I am sure Suz is talking about the feminist one-way automaton troll who just spews the theory she has learnt at college, and just doesnt bother to respond to our counter aguments.

            Anyways.. to answer you question.. No, I dont think women were enmasse oppressed throughout history, nor were men. Were they discriminated against? Yes. (Like I said in another comment on the Wide-Redefinition fallacy). But so were men. for e.g men, but not women, were drafted to fight war. Men had to take up the death jobs, such as fire-fighting, damn-building, fighting wild-animals that surrounded them, etc. A man without status had no chance of procuring a mate. Even to this day, women dont marry down in general, even after 50+ years of feminism.

            The content on this website is quite expansive.. It took me many months of reading to understand the big picture. And the views expressed here are very much counter-mainstream, esp feminist gender studies courses in academia. In fact, I would not recommend this website to start with. Start with dissident feminists such as Cathy Young, Christina Hoff Sommers. Follow her on twitter, and you will see things like this.

            Follow the work of 70s/80 feminist Camille Paglia

            It was always the proper mission of feminism to attack and reconstruct the ossified social practices that had led to wide-ranging discrimination against women. But surely it was and is possible for a progressive reform movement to achieve that without stereotyping, belittling or demonizing men. History must be seen clearly and fairly: obstructive traditions arose not from men’s hatred or enslavement of women but from the natural division of labor that had developed over thousands of years during the agrarian period and that once immensely benefited and protected women, permitting them to remain at the hearth to care for helpless infants and children. Over the past century, it was labor-saving appliances, invented by men and spread by capitalism, that liberated women from daily drudgery.

            What is troubling in too many books and articles by feminist journalists in the U.S. is, despite their putative leftism, an implicit privileging of bourgeois values and culture. The particular focused, clerical and managerial skills of the upper-middle-class elite are presented as the highest desideratum, the ultimate evolutionary point of humanity. Yes, there has been a gradual transition from an industrial to a service-sector economy in which women, who generally prefer a safe, clean, quiet work environment thrive.

            Power comes in many forms. Women have enormous sexual and emotional power. Even with respect to something like the vote for women in US/UK, unless one looks at the whole picture (which feminist literature wont), one cant see the big picture. for e.g consider this woman in Victorian England who opposed the vote.

            Corelli on the Women’s Vote, in 1900s

            I love my own sex, and I heartily sympathise with every step that women take towards culture, freedom, advancement, and the moral and intellectual mastery of themselves. I would fain serve them in all that may be for their peace and perfect happiness, but I honestly feel that such peace and happiness are not to be gained by violent or unnatural methods. The object of woman’s existence is not to war with man, or allow man to war with her, but simply to conquer him and hold him in subservience without so much as a threat or a blow. Clever women always do this; clever women have always done it. It is only stupid women who cannot command men

          • DeBorah

            I appreciate your sharing more information with me. I didn’t come here to blindly oppose, I was interested in a real discussion. It’s unfortunate that I received such aggressive responses, though I understand if you and others here are accustomed to having to take a defensive position against closed minded “trolls” as its apparently called.

            I think my issue is still with the use of the term oppression, discrimination and sexism. The points that I have been attempting to make is that women and men alike have endured a variety of unjust treatments throughout human history. Thus, I do not align myself with feminists because I don’t agree with the severity of their claim. On the other side of that coin, I do not agree with hard-core anti-feminists who claim women have never endured mass discrimination. I don’t understand arguing that one has had it worse than the other when both have been victimized.

            “The object of woman’s existence is not to war with man, or allow man to war with her, but simply to conquer him and hold him in subservience without so much as a threat or a blow.” – Comments like this seem irrational and just as overblown as feminist claims. It’s an over-generalization, grouping all women together as some kind of manipulative tyrants. This is my problem with both sides of the argument.

            Generally, I don’t believe that there are throngs of men or women out there consciously attempting to oppress each other. Do I believe the genders engage in a struggle for perceived power? Absolutely. In this struggle both men and women have been discriminated against on a mass scale. That does not make one side more justified than the other. I cringe at the blaming that happens from both sides, pointing fingers like someone is just making up stories of unjust treatment. The kicker is that I think people on both sides of the fence honestly feel unjustly treated. They both should be honored, not told to “shut the fuck up” or that their feelings are invalid. One person feeling oppressed is cause for concern and should be addressed. By whom? That I do not know. But I don’t believe that telling everyone to suck it up and move on is the right course of action either.

          • Mr. E

            “They both should be honored, not told to “shut the fuck up” or that their feelings are invalid. One person feeling oppressed is cause for concern and should be addressed. By whom? That I do not know. But I don’t believe that telling everyone to suck it up and move on is the right course of action either.”

            I agree. But I’m new here and I’m still reading and learning. I hope the answer will become clearer.

          • Bora Bosna

            Just get over the word oppression and you’re good. Words are weapons used by feminists, meaning whatever they want it to mean. Forget about the word gender too. Use “sex” instead. Also stop thinking of the sexes as “sides”. Feminists stirred up these “gender wars” by making people think that way.

          • DeBorah

            If Webster is wrong about the definition of oppression, then who is right? It seems more a game of semantics now than a discussion about the actual acts of discrimination.

          • Bora Bosna

            Oppression is just a word. Look at what actually happened in history, without simplifying anything.

          • Mr. E

            I don’t know what the truth is either. All I have ever heard is Feminist dogma and what they write in the history books. I *know* that the “Patriarchy” doesn’t exist, and I believe that men have been doing their best to provide for their families all along– and probably what happened 50 years ago is the same thing that happened 100 years ago and 500 years ago– minus the modern plumbing and indoor toilets, of course. But apart from that, I don’t know any more about what life was like– especially with respect to the interpersonal dynamics between men and women– apart from what I’ve read in books and seen on TV. So how do you know who is telling you the truth? Which is the real version? I’m a student too– of life. I want to learn.

          • Bora Bosna

            What you’re doing is the “1% men at the top” argument feminists always do.
            “Why aren’t there more female CEOs?” they say.
            This ignores a huge chunk of men at the bottom.
            Those already holding the ranks of power also denied MEN more power. At least women did not have to go get killed for it.
            If those already holding the ranks of power were female, they would have done just the same to both men and women. Would you have said “women have oppressed men” in that case? I really don’t think you would.
            Therefore there is no gender based oppression. There is oppression. You are the one denying this by not looking at the whole picture.

        • Bev

          If you are studying here is a reference as a starter.

          Women and Work
          in the Middle Ages

          Pat Knapp /
          Monika von Zell

          “Modern historians are beginning to discover that medieval women made a significant contribution to the economy of the medieval world. In past histories, women were either ignored by men or taken for granted. Neither religious nor romantic literature gives us an accurate accounting of the activities of the real medieval woman. Today, letters, wills, business and legal documents, convent, manor and census records and manuscript illuminations are used to complete our concept of the world of medieval women.”

          Other line you might pursue:
          Women in the textile trade and brewing in medieval Europe.
          Short answer: Major players

          Duties of noble women while their husbands/fathers were away fighting.
          Short answer they had the same powers and duties as their husband/father.

          Arranged marriages
          Short answer It constricted both men and women.

          Who produced a great many of the Admiralty navigation tables used by the Royal Navy in the 18Th century?
          Short answer: A woman. (This is a very interesting subject)

          I could pose a lot more questions but an open minded examination would show the feminist view is just wrong when the big picture is examined.

          The problem is history was written from a point of view of the major players it did not cover lower classes either man or women and feminists have cherry picked the bits that suit them.

      • Nid

        But women HAVE been oppressed by men. And men have been oppressed by men. And females have oppressed males. But most of all, men were definitely the main oppressors. All these oppressive ideas society have today? That men can’t be raped, men can’t show vulnerability, acting feminine means you’re weak? Ideas created and indoctrinated into society by men, centuries ago. I’m not holding current day men responsible for the screw-ups of our forefathers, but I am holding any accountable who say that men never oppressed women. Of course women wouldn’t consider themselves oppressed hundreds of years ago, because women genuinely believed they were inferior to men, and existed to serve and obey men. Nobody who knows anything at all about history can possibly say and believe that men never oppressed women.

        • driversuz

          “But most of all, men were definitely the main oppressors.”

          Utter nonsense. You believe this because feminists have fed you a steady diet of lies and cherry-picked, incomplete “factoids” throughout your entire life. If you open your eyes and look, you’ll find far more examples of men protecting women from oppression, than of men “oppressing” women.

          “because women genuinely believed they were inferior to men, and existed to serve and obey men.”

          This is also bullshit. Most men have always devoted their lives to giving women what they need and want, from the moment their mothers taught them to speak.

          Your fake version of history doesn’t fly here. Go sell it on Tumblr.

          • Nid

            *slow clap* Well done for assuming why I believe what I believe instead of asking! Bonus points for completely missing the mark!! I believe this because clearly, unlike you, I actually did my history homework. Feminists have never forced anything down my throat, and unfortunately have not had a physical presence for even a fraction of my life, let alone my entire life. What exactly is it that they were protecting females from? So basically, you’re saying that men never refused women the vote? And women were never treated by men as property? And it was not common practice for men to beat their wives, sometimes resulting in the wife’s death? You’re saying that even queens were never constricted by patriarchal values, such as how married women were not allowed to wear their hair loose? And you’re of course also saying that women were never taught from birth by both sexes that females were inferior to males, and were not worth educating?

            A person being someone else’s property? Sometimes being beaten to death? That doesn’t sound like oppression. That’s totally protection. Because women NEED to be protected by men don’t they? They can’t be left to their own devices. But who did women need protecting from? Men. They needed protection from men, that’s who.

            It’s actually funny how you’re saying I’m brainwashed because it’s CLEARLY you who has been brainwashed. My ‘fake’ version of history actually happens to be genuine, not your made up fantasy where males have always been ‘protecting’ females from mythical beasts. This what life was like for women in the Tudor times. Do your damn research.

          • driversuz

            WOMEN refused the vote – until women were assured that it would not come with the obligation of conscription. The minute that the majority of women wanted the vote, MEN gave it to them, because men usually give women what women want.

            No, you haven’t done your homework, and yes, I was serious about not selling your revised history and feminist dogma here at AVfM. We’ve heard it all before, and if you can be bothered to read this site, you will discover that we have also refuted it all. It is our policy to keep “Patriarchy” dogma off of these pages, not because it’s a “dissenting” opinion, but because it is pure fantasy and it adds nothing to adult conversations. You might as well write a 500 word comment on the mating habits of unicorns. Go back to your dollies and your blanket fort now, and don’t interrupt the grownups again. Goodbye.

          • driversuz

            You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy (trolling). [Ref: 4883]

            Additional remarks:

            Pearl-clutching purveyor of Patriarchy Theory.

          • Roger Twoteas Cope

            Is that equality is it?
            Protecting women, laying down jackets, opening doors, paying for dinner. All habits taught to us because women are weak and require looking after. This patronizing at best and demoralizing at worst.

            Devoting your life to giving someone what they want, why would you do this? That just sounds non-logical. How would you feel if you had a servant at your hand, it would not make you feel equal at all.

            Men have many issues, the majority of which are the opposites to what women deal with. no gender should have to deal with any form of oppression. Dealing with the reasons men act in the way they do will actually negate the majority of current womens issues.

  • DeBorah
    • Mr. E

      Thank you for the link DeBorah.

      I am seeking the truth of history. I am open to any links that anybody might have that helps me understand the way things really were.

  • DeBorah

    Thank you for making the point about male circumcision.

    • MGTOW-man

      She personifies the stereotype of women only being able to think of themselves. Gee, I wonder where such assumptions come from. Staring her straight in her face is the other side of the genital mutilation coin, but she, like so many oblivio-idiots, would say that circumcision isn’t worthy of our complaints and that we all should just man-up. This begs the question of just who is the oppressed?

  • K Bren

    I appreciate many of the points this author has made. I believe women are being oppressed to this day, but not at all by the magnitude that most feminists put it. In fact, like the point he made about men being drafted for war while women were safe is unjust treatment. As is the way a man is expected to pamper women just because they’re a woman. Of course, I don’t want a man to disrespect me, but I don’t want him to feel the obligation to treat me like, as he mentioned, a princess. Women aren’t anything special. Like men, we are human. Eliminating sexism means treating one another with mutual respect.
    What I would appreciate from the author, though, is a bit more research on his history. Some of his claims are a bit flimsy and they could be a bit more accurate or more clarified.

    • DeBorah

      I appreciate your use of the term sexism. It gestures to the oppression faced by both men and women by the present social structure. My concern is when we swing from one end of the spectrum to the other, denying that women have ever been oppressed and that men are the only oppressed. The article here seems a bit more like an opinion piece than the kind of scholarly article that would end up in a peer-reviewed journal. Thus, I also feel it is lacking in a few areas.

      Thank you for a thoughtful post.

      • John Rew

        Sorry can’t find the part in the article that claims men are oppressed you’ll have to point it out to me.

    • fernsoles

      A relationship with woman=abuse. Glad I finally learned this. Fooled no more.

  • DeBorah

    ::chuckle:: I particularly like the way you expressed your opinion here. I’ve attempted to express mine and ask questions as to whether its “oppression” they believe does not exist or any form of unjust treatment of women, ever. I was told, in fact, that the Merriam-Webster dictionary is not correct and that I’m using the term inappropriately when I refer to the oppression that women, men and children alike have faced throughout history.
    What I’m most confused about is the Title and sub-title of this site: A Voice for Men (clearly a gendercentric, male oriented representation) Humanistic Counter-Theory (a gesture toward being in support of BOTH sexes). Yet articles like this are posted, clearly denying the unjust treatment that women have endured. Ignoring sexism doesn’t solve the problem, nor does claiming it doesn’t exist. I’m still curious if its just a game of semantics being played here or if the author and the pro-article commentors really believe women have never endured unjust treatment enmass. Thoughts?

    • Astrokid M57

      Strike 3 which, since you can’t seem to adhere to Comment Policy, means you are now autobanned. [Ref: 2197]

      Additional remarks:

      Crazy bitch.. off you go.
      I wont let a dimwit pretend-victim like you mis-represent and denigrate this site on this site

    • Leibfarce

      P-people were treated unjustly in the past?

      People who weren’t aristocrats?

      Well… golly gee. That’s a stunning revelation.

      Who woulda thunk it? In an era where MIGHT(note: not cock and balls) was right, people were put under heel?

      Man. Thank you for letting me know this. I’m really glad to have such a mighty thinker as you here to debate us lowly men.

  • Leibfarce

    So you hate men who think they should be listened to…

    But you obviously think YOU should be listened to.

    Reading your comments is like reading HowToBeAnInternetFeminist 101.

    Do you have an original thought in your head?

    P.s Men, throughout history, have gotten the shorter end of the stick on violence compared to women. This is not even up for debate. There’s a difference between being battered and being maimed. This tradition of men being the primary victims of violence in the world continues to this day.

  • franco-american

    I just tire of hearing the stories about past oppression to explain present attitudes or actions.
    The analyzation of the past can get so damned complex and confusing- besides the recorded historical facts, we’ve got things that were going on underneath it all but were implicit. Women have held it as “mystique” that they can manipulate emotions, pull strings in “unseen ways”, be the invisible power behind the image of men, so then those recorded facts have less strength in representing the whole story.

    I find the exercise of trying to clarify that in vain. The past is not the present. It’s like blacks that rationalize unethical behavior now, because slavery of blacks once existed.

    I won’t make any friends with this opinion, but I think some of it is due to the generational characteristics. Baby Boomers on the whole still defend the myth that their provocation of a cultural upheaval was nothing short of heroic action worthy of worship, and though many of their X Gen kids didn’t buy that (we were too close, we saw the reality) the grandkids, the young adult generation now, are eating it up – and using it.
    This gives the grandparents the ego caress they want and are used to, but it ignores the reality and I think it is destructive.

    I don’t care if we once needed feminism or not. Looking around I don’t see a need for it now, end of story.

    • Darkraidevon

      You are so privileged that you are tired of hearing about minorities being oppressed by (mainly white) men, wow. How the hell do you think it feels to be on the other side dealing with being discriminated against on a daily basis THEN having articles like this written by WOW you guessed it… a white man about how the mistreatment of women never even happened. If you’re sick of hearing about it then don’t write ignorant comments, or rather, don’t read articles at all. in fact, never leave your house because unfortunately for ~*you*~ you might see someone of color or a women or trans person or gay person being discriminated against and obviously that would be just oh so annoying for Y.O.U. right.

      • franco-american

        This article is specifically about oppression of women- not gays, not transgenders, not people “of color”.
        I am a woman, and I have experienced being unfairly benefitted, with more rights and privileges than men, very often. I don’t care about the past- it is the past. Right now, the laws in the US favor women over men.
        If you don’t like my opinion on that, you are free to write as many ignorant comments as you like, I don’t give a crap.

      • Magnus

        Mistreatment of people happened in the past.
        The problem that Paul is shedding a light on is that we only ever talk about the mistreatment of some women, and extrapolate that into the mistreatment of all women, and call it fact.

        This fact has now translated into a blinding ignorance towards discrimination against men.

        But go ahead dude, create a strawman to attack, than actually attack franco-americans point:
        Let the past be the past, let’s focus on the now.

        And right now, in the west, women are not oppressed, and quite frankly not as discriminated against as you and your ilk try to make them out to be.

    • Guestronomy

      “Baby Boomers on the whole still defend the myth that their provocation
      of a cultural upheaval was nothing short of heroic action worthy of
      or possibly that the spike in birth rate, made ideological young adults, the main voting block?

  • Paulus Magus

    I don’t interact with stupid white college kids, and television is for retards, so I actually don’t run into many Feminazis. But I really would love to knock the teeth out of one. I’ll give them a reason to cry.
    Basically, Feminazism is the worst thing since Christianity for making women into fucking retarded, delusional twats who contribute nothing.

    However, I completely blame men for the success of Feminazis. Men really do control the soldiery, the economy, the State and are generally much better at philosophy and planning. The only, ONLY reason Feminazis exist is because men put up with that shit – you pandered to bitches for pussy.
    As long as men are too fucking dependent to refuse to deal with stupid cunts and learn to jerk off they have no one to blame but themselves for this shit.

    And the average crypto-Transexual bitch that is called a ‘man’ today is basically a eunuch, an illiterate dope, an unemployable douche and more or less deliberately irresponsible. These subhumans don’t deserve anyone’s sympathy, they deserve a eugenics program.

    • driversuz

      You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy (misandry and misogyny and violence). [Ref: 3424]

  • Devon Boulanger

    This article is stupid and here’s why:

    History of the oppression, mistreatment, and inequalities of women have been going on for what seems like forever, and in many, many countries. Whether it take on the form of circumcision of the female genitalia and removal of the clitoris or closing the opening and sewing it entirely, ownership from father or husband, slut shaming, the Salem witch trials, killing of female newborns, normality of rape, or the wage gap; the list really does go on. In 1951, Helen Hacker listed the 4 ways in which women were being discriminated against in the U.S. at the time. Her list consisted of politically and legally, educationally, economically, and socially discriminated against. (Henslin p.268)

    Speaking specifically about the U.S., the 1800’s were a time in which women tried to gain rights since they were almost all under the control of a man. They were not allowed to vote, have property, spend their own money, testify in court, or make legal contracts. (Henslin p.273) When beginning to confront the social problem, these women were denied the ability to speak in public, and those who opposed were burned with cigars, slapped, spat on, among other acts. In 1916 the National Women’s Party was formed with the main goal of gaining ability to vote. They started protesting outside the white house in 1917 for 6 months, and hundreds of them went to prison. (Henslin p.274) Although in earlier history
    discrimination may have been more easily seen, it is still very well hidden in plain sight today. There’s the wage gap ranging from 7% in the US to 20% in the UK (, hidden quotas, sexist jokes,
    beliefs of men being more qualified than women, normality and injustice of rape, slut shaming, idea of “not being lady-like”, rejection of birth control or abortion, ignorance of sexism, etc.

    • Thomas Anthony Allen

      You have proven nothing but the point of the article it’s self, you feminists point at nothing and make a whole lot of noise. Non of your sources are credible. You have not shown that women are oppressed, you have shown that they are not, please expand you vocabulary and learn the meaning of the words you use.

    • Epoche

      You talk about the wage gap, how about we close the homeless gap – let’s start slashing government programs so that at least 50 percent of the homeless. I dont comprehend why equality should be only in the good things in life.

    • mark mooroolbark

      But I could provide you with a list of all the inequalities and mistreatment men have endured through the ages because of their gender-in fact Paul has touched on some of these injustices. What’s your point? Feminists don’t say- men and women have been oppressed in different ways throughout history and this needs to change. They focus exclusively on women and refuse to acknowledge any inequities faced by men.

      When you say women were under the control of men in the 1800s, what do you mean? You mention the normality of rape when in fact rape has never been considered anything other than a crime, usually punishable by death. You throw in slut shaming and I throw up white feathers carried by the suffragettes or men branded cowards and shunned by society. I could go on about boys being flogged whilst it was illegal to flog girls after 1817. We could look at the fact that boys and only boys died cleaning chimneys or suffered the agony of genital cancers as a result of their labors. Not being lady like sounds similar to not being “a man or manning up”. You have the gall to raise the issue of birth control-something invented by men for the convenience of women. Abortion is a complex and vexed issue with all of the power to decide in the hands of the woman. If the man wants his child that’s too bad-she can kill it. If he doesn’t want it-too bad, she can give birth and he is on the hook for 18 years-sounds fair. If she dumps it she is protected from prosecution. If she kills it it was post natal depression and she walks free.

      Women never tell sexist jokes or objectify the male body. Women claim we have no say on abortion becasue it is their body. yet in time of conflict men’s bodies become the property of the government.

      I could go on, but I am tired.

    • biljay

      If women are equal to men, how could they have been oppressed. I think men were just as oppressed by kings, dictators, religion, and social customs.

    • MGTOW-man

      Yep, and you just automatically believe whatever feminist tripe comes next down the pipe. Have you no spine? Think for yourself instead of just absorb.

      I said think, not feel. One is more objective than the other in case you haven’t figured it out yet.

      The vast majority of men couldn’t vote either until about 50 years or so before the women could. AND, women could vote much, much earlier than what feminists lie about, particularly in several states. Colorado is one of them: 1893. The “women-couldn’t-even-vote!!!” lie is so thoroughly debunked that it is amazing so many of the duped suckers still parrot this vacuous nonsense. Got any facts that are real, or just more made-up junk that feminists devise to manipulate the masses into being sheeple.


      Also, the male vote was tethered to their inability to avoid conscription to war. Instead of women seeking true equality there, they just wanted the goods, not the corresponding responsibilities. The men were weak enough to just hand it over to them without so much of a spine to be honest with them about their circumvention of conscription… and more. Then those “ladies” had the boorish audacity to pin white feathers on men who had objections to being slaves and martyrs for the state, while they laid back and schemed how they were going to manipulate their way into supremacy by exploiting men’s love of women in some of the most heinous ways imaginable.

      One can tell that you are powered not by facts, but by emotions and wishes…things that make women like you. Totally transparent and shallow.

      In case you have learned yet, we don’t buy our women here, particularly because these intelligent beings with us are not for sale…the currency being behaviors of the duped. Go buy your women somewhere else. AND, if you need a liar, look elsewhere. Plenty of places you can go wallow in lies told to women, by cowards, that is.

    • Thomas Anthony Allen

      You are simply telling one side of a story, for that, you are a liar.

      Men have suffered at greater numbers, then women. Women of power where called Dominas and they utilized their males slaves as much as Patriarchs utilized their female slaves. No culture condones the poor treatment of women over men, every culture sees more males suffering then females. Historically more men have been in bondage then women

  • Nid

    This article has no credibility whatsoever. By some history classes do you mean about three? Because historically, many females were taught form birth that they were inferior to men, and existed to serve men. They were considered not even worthy of educating. They were raised to be completely obedient to men. They didn’t get a choice of who they would marry. They would be married off as children, up to about 14 years old, otherwise they would be considered too old for marriage. Now take into account that the main function of a wife historically was to produce a son to continue the family line. These girls were just kids. The way women dressed was strictly controlled. Not even the queens of England would be allowed to wear their hair down. The law gave the husband full rights over his wife, she effectively became his property. An adulterous wife could be burnt at the stake for adultery or killing her husband, which was not considered murder when committed by a wife, but the far worse crime of petty treason. Petty treason means a subordinate committing a crime against their superior. See that? ‘Superior’. Wife beating was common and the belief was that the wife would have provoked her husband into beating her and if she had behaved properly, he would not have beaten her. Therefore she herself was responsible for her beating. In theory, a wife could walk away from a marriage, but to what? Who would keep her? Who would employ her? Therefore, women had to stay in a marriage even if it was a brutal one as there was very little else she could do.

    A person being someone else’s property? Sometimes being beaten to death? That doesn’t sound like oppression.

    • DrX


    • Thomas Anthony Allen

      I would love to see you prove this load of bullshit.

      • Bewildered

        • Thomas Anthony Allen

          Is this the source of your brains malfunction? Your inability to comprehend the scientific process?

          • Bewildered

            You jumped the gun my friend ! LMFAO!
            Hint: POE’s law

    • klaatu

      Hey nid shaddup and get your old lady to make a beer run wouldja?

    • Paul Elam


    • KnxGuy MGY


    • Magnus

      Let’s take the absolutely over the top fringe of what happened and call it the truth, then we say it happened to everyone.

  • Mr. E

    And now women can have abortions and absolve themselves of responsibility anytime they choose. You’ve got Adam beat by a country mile!

  • Beau Ste croix

    Hey nid everything you said in your comment is happening right now to women in the Middle East. Why aren’t feminists over there fighting for the rights of women instead of talking about things that happened in American decades ago or hundreds of years ago for that matter? Women didn’t have it nearly as bad as the African Americans in this country and they certainly don’t have it as bad as the women in middle eastern countries.

    • KnxGuy MGY

      I suggest you watch girl writes what video about middle eastern women.
      Theyre more protected and treasured over in the middle east than in the west.
      Just look at who dies more over there… How many beheadings of women have you actually seen?

      • BJS

        Ha! Are you kidding me? When I was over seas women were being stoned for showing to much leg. Women are sent to jail for being raped! A husband when I was there poured gas on his wife a burnt here in the streets. We witnessed the aftermath of that one. Anyone how says they Cherish there women should read about honour killings in the Muslim religion.

        This is a women. One of hundreds beheaded by Isis. Check your facts man.

        • driversuz

          Not like ISIS beheads men or anything. Or kidnaps, er, “recruits,” kindergarten aged boys as “warriors.”
          Women have never EVER been oppressed more than men, and they have never been oppressed by men. Now you can fuck right off.

      • Magnus

        It’s easy to look at a sub set of a culture through ideologically tinted glasses and say “Hey oppression!”

        • Bewildered

          Reductionism needs caricatures like fishes need water.

    • KnxGuy MGY

      Middle eastern women have it so bad in those full body covering clothing that… They still bloody wear them in my country… Where men are still “oppressing” women … Aparently
      Oh and then they leave to go join ISIS and leave their children behind and then want sympathy? Yeah… Real oppressive to be protected, driven everwhere, not have to be financialy, socially or personally responsible for anything…

    • TheManWithNoHat

      Because if it can’t be solved by a hashtag, they can’t be bothered.

  • Tom Golden

    Damn. I really enjoyed reading this. Paul said: “I’m no historian, but I did attend some history classes before I finished middle school. So, by the time I was 13, I knew what oppression was.” Damn, I laughed at the same time I said DAMN STRAIGHT! In fact reading the entire article brought those two experiences repeatedly. Great stuff, well said and indisputable.

  • MGTOW-man

    What he was saying is that one doesn’t have to be a historian to know the actual truth. All it takes is a class or two taken by someone who is actually paying attention instead of swallowing—hook, line, and sinker—whatever feminist tripe comes next down the pipe.

  • Bora Bosna


    • Charles Ray

      Yes. But privilege by oppression sounds better

  • Bora Bosna

    If you were part of 99% of war deaths, over 80% of suicide victims, leading in 9 out of 10 major causes of death, majority of college dropouts, went to prison because you could not pay child support which you should not have to, had no genital integrity, and more, then you would bitch about gender roles too.

  • biljay

    If women wanted the right to vote, why did they wait so long to demand the right? Because they wanted to wait to see if the experiment would be safe and successful. “We hang together or we hang separately” applied to men. Women got the right to vote, without ever firing a shot! Now that’s power. Queen Victoria did not think women should vote. Women who stayed home and had children had high status because societies needed kids to grow the society. Lady Randolph, Winston Churchill’s mother, did not think women should vote. Early polling places were in saloons. A lady did not frequent saloons. Most people lived in the country. Can you imagine a woman riding all day in a wagon to town with her kids to vote. The past is like a foreign country. They do things differently there.

    • driversuz

      “Women who stayed home and had children had high status because societies needed kids to grow the society.”

      Women who worked had plenty of babies, who were raised by extended family. Women who stayed home to raise their own children had high status because their husbands were wealthy enough that a second income was not needed. It was a privilege, not an obligation to society.

      • Bewildered

        Hehehehe ! Occam’s razor …..

        were raised by extended family
        True !
        So when people talk about ‘communes’ and ‘villages’ they are actually being regressive !

  • michaelsavell

    In my near 80 years of experience in this world,having been born in what was the,beautiful England,I have known and met many married couples and can tell you truthfully that I have never met an oppressed woman.Most couples I have ever known
    had the woman in the drivers seat,she did all the planning as to what was needed,managed the money( in the old days the man would present her with an unopened wage envelope and she would give him pocket-money).She was the one who decided the large decisions,not him,she was always the boss of her household.
    The difference between now and then was that she didn’t deride him,she gave him respect and he gave her his life.True,there were some saturday night bust ups after a night in the boozer but like Judy in Punch she held her own.This last part only went for about 15 of the population buit if you came between them both would attack you.They were indivisible.

  • MGTOW-man

    And you know what else the children see? They see women hit men and get away with it too. They see the violence. They see, then do. Women who hit men are not only stupid enough to do the least safe thing they could possibly do, (instead of getting away and cooling down, like men are expected to do…like equal adults are supposed to do), but they set an example of violence borne of tantrums, impulsiveness and exploitation. How are we ever going to stop DV if half of the crowd doing it won’t quit, and don’t even think they have to either? Duuuh!

    What the hell is so wrong with spineless men who let women beat on them? What could be so wrong with men saying to women: and you can’t hit us men either?” I mean, why not true equality instead of this special preferential treatment version that pits men and women unequal?

    OK, so women do not appreciate being hit on. WOW! neither do men. Imagine that!

  • Elliott Gaal

    I can see why this is classic here. It does reinforce my theory of oppression knows no gender or race. The powerful do not want to share with others. Hence why they try to create division among the less fortunate. That is classic divide and conquer routine .
    Anyone is capable of it. Fortunately most don’t want to do that.

  • John Rew

    Ah yes I remember my teenage years in the seventies leading my personal harem of women around cow bells noisily rattling. You could swap them like base ball cards back then. The Friday night rape meetings were so cool with rapist of the week getting a standing ovation. Those were the days. There is one really good thing about nowadays though ,there seems to be a lot more gullible people around. You can easily convince them that the most horrendously absurd things are true and then watch them tripping over their own feet trying to live by this knowledge and protect it like it is some eternally existing wisdom. Often they will pay you a living wage for it. Thank god for gender studies.

  • Karl Dawg

    Thank – you !

  • Steve Brulé

    Brilliant and concise, well-done!

  • Bewildered

    This is a golden classic.

    You couldn’t buy this kind of crazy if you were Bill Gates……
    But proof of women’s oppression? Comedians pay for material that isn’t nearly this funny……
    Who knows what insanity plagued us before feminism restored us to reason?

    All that from an ideology that resides a house of cards that only
    remains standing because the wind itself has been scared out of blowing
    it down

    Tornadoes and cyclones are dangerous precisely because people take calm weather for granted

    winning a race is easy when you start with one foot already across the finish line, and everyone else pretends not to notice.

    So Obama needs to be told that walking backwards with or without high heels is actually relinquishing a winning position even in a game of pretense.