Criminals exist — I never said they don't. Slaves also existed — but slavery was neither gendered nor was it restricted to certain races. Remember the word itself comes from slavic.
Speaking of what happens even today: Do you know what Bacha bāzī is?
But feminist claims that women where legally treated a chattel in country and at a time when feminism was active. And that's not true.
What was required by law and to some degree still is that men where required to provided for there wife including paying her depts. This is where the chattel part comes from.
And this is kind of profound. Men could go to prison if they where unable to pay there wives depts. For example one feminist refused to pay her taxes and her husband went to prison for it.
I bed your feminist teachers never told you about that one.
Oh, NOW I see... cherry picked facts and solitary examples are just fine, but only for making YOUR point. Of course, I guess I should have known.
Pointing out a general occurrence and then giving an example it not the same as giving an example and then construction a generality from that single example.
Main difference: my point would still be valid without the example.
Whatever you need to tell yourself to hold on to that hate... the gymnastics are too exhausting for me. I'd much rather have the understanding than the hate.
I'm not the one who hates. I'm pointing out the hate from the other side. Unless you follow that new definition from the United Nations where truth is now hate speech. They did that a few years ago. This is the feminist world we live in. Where truth is hate speech.
BTW: this was only the first of six postings. To bad you never watched any of Janice Fiamengo's videos. You don't actually know the full argument and as such your counters are pretty lame.
This is a hateful statement. You've already given your 'enemies' the demeaning label of 'other'. We do not live in a feminist world, that is a hateful delusion you've been brainwashed with. That's the truth. If you think it's hate speech, that's on you. I don't hate you. I don't even hate your hate. I just want to understand how you ended up so misguided.
I'm not countering any of your arguments, I'm telling you what I've witnessed with my own eyes. Watching a bunch of propaganda that encourages me to see MY reality through someone else's hate sounds like a monumental waste of time. You're not going to see the propaganda when I point it out, or we wouldn't be here now. If you can't sum up the full argument for me in less than 1000 words, then YOU don't know the full argument either. What you're really saying here is 'You don't think the same way I do, so you must not be educated yet.'
Am I wrong? What's your endgame with this? Isn't it your goal to undermine and destroy feminism? Isn't that the EXACT SAME kind of hate you (wrongfully) accuse feminists of? Do you even know the point you're trying to convey, and why?
BTW: Your username translates from Latin as 'The wyrm that makes things worse'.
Just read the first 1000 words here:
http://blog.studiobrule.com/2022/02/early-feminists-pathologized-male.html
Janice is an english literature professor — her eloquence is beyond anything I could ever hope to archive. You will enjoy her writing much more then anything I can gobble together.
Saving society from collapse. But I'm well aware that mens rights will most likely fail. Gynocentrism is just to strong.
Maybe you should re-read that, because it 100% backs up my point that the hatred you see in feminism was a response to hateful activities by men. Let me sum up that article in 1000 words or less for you.
Laws were passed that subject women to unwarranted arrest and medical examination, because it was assumed that male sexual needs were so uncontrollable that making prostitution illegal was impractical. The law subjected ALL women to examination, because only SUSPICION was required for a woman to be assumed guilty. The article then goes on to vilify Josephine Butler for drawing the logical conclusion from the premise for these laws... that women must be subjected to men's desires, because men can't control themselves. It is literally the EXACT same premise that the Contagious Diseases Act used to justify themselves.
What this article says, basically, is that it's okay to pass laws that limit the freedom of women because men are unable to control themselves, but it is not okay for women to say out loud why men passed those laws. If you don't think that's hateful treatment of women, then you most likely hate women. I don't know why, and I don't care... I don't approve of your hate or your desire to spread it. If you don't want me intruding on your little 'hate bubble', then mute me. You wouldn't be the first bigot that didn't want to know the truth.