>>585394 >Have women in Europe historically been oppressed, privileged or a mix of both? Yes. (Anderson, Bonnie S. and Judith P. Zinsser. A History of Their Own: Women in Europe from Prehistory to the Present)
>>585394 Women have always been as oppressed as men Both had to follow rigid gender Roles, Its just that due to "Individualism" we are led to believe that Males being forced to Their gender Roles is good and Females being led to theirs is bad
>>585465 They could, but they were severely limited in inheritance, which was a lot more important than it is in modern times for acquiring properties. The eldest son was generally favored and this isn't a secret. Widows could receive about a third of inheritance compared to children, although in some places they got none at all. Dowries meant that infanticide of female daughters was more common too. Sure, men died more often in wars, but it's not like soldiers chivalrously spared female civilians instead of raping them. There was also no ban on marital rape, no contraception and death by childbirth was very common. The /r9k/ attempt to make it out like history was matriarchal is a joke.
>>585476 >If noblewomen were privileged compared to noblemen
They weren't. A jousting tournament isn't the single defining feature of medieval society you mongoloid. It's not like women would have been allowed to participate even if they wanted to, or that the victors didn't get prizes.
That literally says nothing about property rights in European history.
This one says
>Women had property rights and many landowners were women. They were able to bequeath land, as shown in numerous wills. Leaving property by means of a will was not restricted to kin; it could also be left to servants, religious figures, and churches. Documents of wills and charters show that women owned estates, by virtue of grant, will, or inheritance, and that they were seen roughly equal in the common life of the countryside. Evidence in these documents shows no preference to daughters or sons as heirs. Ceorl women and others of high rank were responsible for their homes. Some of the items that women would commonly receive via trust or inheritance were real property estates, slaves, livestock, household furnishings, clothing, jewels, and books. Items such as table clothes, bed sheets, and wall hangings were considered women's property because women made them.
>women werent allowed into colleges until the 19th century
That doesn't mean they couldn't get educated, you know.
>>585507 Faggot, don't act like men never joined wars willingly and were all pacifists who got conscripted. They were often paid wages or allowed to loot treasure, rape women and get land. Women wouldn't have been allowed to join if they wanted to, but they wouldn't be safe against sieges and raids all the same, which they could easily die fighting in.
Childbirth was a big risk for premodern women too. She was married off to a husband of someone else's choosing and it's not like she could choose to not have children. Two thirds of "witches" killed were also women although that's drifting into the early modern era.
>>585491 >spend a few years studying this and get back to me >gives a fucking WIKIPEDIA link lmao, there's certainly gonna be no bias there. Oh and you're going to tell me women had no rights when Eleanor of Aquitaine and Empress Matilda both ruled >women werent allowed into colleges until the 19th century Isabella I was extremely educated. Look up Hildegard of Bingen and then midwives. >>585503 >had the right to beat and rape her Literally what?
>>585542 >>585544 How the fuck did you manage to doublepost? >She was married off to a husband of someone else's choosing Holy shit, stop with the idiotic generalizations you indignant fuck. You're going to tell me no father ever gave his daughter a choice in marriage?
>>585520 Beating your wife was discouraged around about the renaissance. It still generally wasn't prosecuted against and considered a personal matter. I don't even think the concept of marital rape existed.
Hell, in the modern USA martial rape only became federally illegal in 1993, wifebeating around 1920.
>>585575 >Wow, under what fucked up reasoning does that resemble a matriarchy Who claimed a matriarchy? Are you illiterate or just blinded by your period rage? Thanks for admitting you're an idiot and wrong
This is retarded. Yes I'm generalising but I really hope no one actually thinks that men were more oppressed by women in the middle ages. Yes women had rights, they weren't slaves ofc. Yes they had representation in court but their testimony was consisted inferior. Women could run businesses and own Land but this was only after becoming widows or if they were very rich etc. There's no doubt womens role in society was more tightly controlled by men in most of Europe.
>>585455 >Women were not allowed to own land, they were not allowed legal representation, they were not allowed access to education, etc. That's a broad generalisation of cherrypicked laws from individual countries.
>>585619 Being a noblewoman means you get privileges without responsibility and pretty much all the perks of being a ruler. The queen got to be in the highest of castes, enjoy all the spoils of high life, partake in gossip, read and write, and never have to work or go into battle. That's the sense that I mean privileged
>>585644 >Being a noblewoman means you get privileges without responsibility and pretty much all the perks of being a ruler
This is bullshit. Yes, noblewomen had luxuries that were generally associated with the nobility, but you're completely neglecting that noble and royal men had far more power than they did. Men were also favored in inheritance at all classes so a woman's access to "her wealth" would be largely dependent on her husband unless she was widowed, and even then it'd generally go to the eldest son instead.
>The queen got to be in the highest of castes, enjoy all the spoils of high life, partake in gossip, read and write, and never have to work or go into battle. That's the sense that I mean privileged
Using Queens as an example of female privilege, hah. Is that why every monarchy before the late 20th century practiced order of succession and primogeniture in favour of males? Royal men didn't really "work" either. Also since European society was patrilinial a royal or noble woman was far more likely to be shipped off to some faraway place without her consent to be some foreign guys bitch than a noble man was.
>>585672 In Wales. It's a pretty obscure example from a law of one country that presumably didn't last the entire Middle Ages and doesn't suddenly dismiss male privilege that persisted throughout the rest of the period. Divorce was also very expensive and would have to had been approved in court by a male authority.
>>585394 the trend in each culture is that women after their menopause are seem as men, precisely because before the menopause, everybody knows that women are children with the will and power of spreading their legs as wide as possible .
men always knew that woman are too hedonistic and insatiable before they become deprecated.
>>585674 >had far more power than they did It depends on the monarch, many Queens were just as powerful as the king, and many Kings consulted his Queen equally. And who says you even want that power? >would be largely dependent on her husband No fucking shit, it's marriage, it still *should* work that way. And are you saying she really wouldn't have access to whatever she wanted? Because you know that's bullshit. >generally go to the eldest son instead Power and land mostly. Two things which can be both a benefit and a drag. >Using Queens as an example of female privilege We're talking about noblewoman, queens are the best documented and easiest. > every monarchy before the late 20th century practiced order of succession and primogeniture in favour of males You're a dense fucker, aren't you? When I say privilege I mean they get the perks of living as a noble without needing to rule. Power is a burden in a lot of cases. Women didn't have that responsibility. >Royal men didn't really "work" either No but they had to go off to war, quite literally participate in it. No back lines commanding.
Yes, but order of succession favored men. There's a reason the terms "Queen regent" exists and "King regent" doesn't.
>And who says you even want that power?
4chan is full of NEETs so I'm sure a lot of you love the idea of a dependent life with no responsibility or ambition, but most people don't, and it's not like women had a choice in the matter. Plenty of people want to be kings. Are you fucking joking? Why do you think usurpers and conquests exist?
>you know that's bullshit
Okay bro, guess I'll take your word for it!
>Power and land mostly. Two things which can be both a benefit and a drag.
Those lucky peasants.
>We're talking about noblewoman, queens are the best documented and easiest.
Gee I wonder why we shouldn't base vast societal generalizations on the lives on autocrats.
>When I say privilege I mean they get the perks of living as a noble without needing to rule. Power is a burden in a lot of cases. Women didn't have that responsibility.
They had all the priviliges of nobility, except the property and rulership. Okay.
>No but they had to go off to war, quite literally participate in it. No back lines commanding.
Yeah, with elite training at every step of their life, horses and the best arms and armor, along with the spoils of war. Being in a forlon hope was generally only for peasants, disgraced nobles, or a voluntary chance at promotion.
Women mostly didn't fight except in sieges, but they were still killed and affected by war like anyone else. I suspect many would have chosen to if they could have, Joan of arc was kept at the rearguard despite wanting to be at the vanguard iirc. It's not a privilege to be excluded from something, that's just being treated like a child.
Women in the Renaissance usually had a shit go. Never allowed to leave the house unless accompanied, constantly had to look at the floor whilst walking otherwise you were considered to be lusty for sex. You were also basically a play thing for families when marriage came around and if your husband died you were left with nothing. Your old family didn't want you, and your new one wanted nothing to do with you either.
Those who didn't marry were just placed in the convent and lived their lives out married to Jesus.
And that's just noblewoman.
There's an interesting article by Joan Kelly in 1977 entitled "Did Women Have a Renaissance?". She comes to the conclusion that they didn't. Whilst horizons for men broadened, pressures and expectations for women actually became more restrictive.
>>585729 >order of succession Women had power, it just wasn't formal. This isn't a complex concept. >Plenty of people want to be kings Yes, and plenty of nobles, Louis XVI comes to mind, didn't even want power. Emperors and kings were some of the biggest dreamers and escapists >Those lucky peasants Yes, land requires management and costs money to maintain. Not to mention people want to steal/pillage it. >vast societal generalizations on the lives on autocrats You're a fucking idiot. We're talking specifically about nobles. Queens are the epitome of that class. >except the property and rulership Often co-ownership on both, but god forbid everything isn't 100% equal, clearly that means there were no ups or advantages to a life which put you at the highest order, allowed you to enjoy all the splendors, never work, learn to read and write, live in the nicest houses available, and socialize on a nearly day to day basis. >horses and the best arms and armor, The Hundred Years war saw the literal slaughter of almost all of Frances nobility. The Mongols and Turks weren't always the most friendly with captives either. >they were still killed and affected by war like anyone else Are you honestly comparing civilian casualties to actually being a part of the fighting, in pre-gunpowder era warfare? >It's not a privilege to be excluded from something Often times it is. It's very much a privilege to be excluded from poverty and civil war. No, I wouldn't like to be shipped off to go fight in foreign soil, I guess that makes me childish. Please keep your ebola, HIV, and disease away from me, I don't care how "childish" it is, I don't want warts on my dick
>>585394 I cannot speak for Europe, but I can speak for France as I studied it.
Women in the middle ages were totally not oppressed. In fact, they were really equal to men. Peasant and common women were living under a kinda equal marriage regime, thanks to the practice of the female dower : The husband had to keep a sum of money and goods so that, in the even that he may die, his wife will not end in the streets.
Many abbesses were really respected. Though women were forbidden to be Queen, it wasn't because of mysoginy : It was so that the french desmene could not be stolen by anyone. In practice, many women were at times appointed regents, and some of them were shrewd politicians.
There was, also, Joan of Arc.
Ironically the condition of women started to decline after the end of the middle ages. The culmination of this was the Napoleonic Code who made the woman a minor, under the watch of her father and then her husband.
Still, I really hate how people look at History with today's eye and say that all women were oppressed. Yes, there was always the jurisdical theory, but in practice many women were powerful, and for a long time they were not undermined. Besides, none of this was because of hate of women. It was more out of "pity". The men saw women as frail and weak, and wanted to protect them by leaving them at home.
>>585394 A mix of both, depending on their location. In Sparta they had it good as fuck, and in Imperial Rome as well. Supposedly ancient germanic society where also very egalitarian.
One could argue that even in places like Athens, where women were not even allowed to leave the house unless they were Etherae, they had it better than man because lmao no fighting in wars or rowing in boats.
>>585455 In Rome they were allowed legal representation and to own land as well, the same applied to the Visigotic and Lombard kingdoms. Stop getting your information from tumblr, unless you are baiting then godspeed.
>>585394 Rich women werent opressed. Poor women were opressed, just like poor men. The more romanized societies were, the less legal independence women had. In the details you would have to look at societies individulally and period by period.
>people ITT using a comfortable life as proof that you're not oppressed rich women were massively limited by what was considered socially acceptable behaviour. Rich men also had limited roles in society, but they still had a lot more breadth in terms of what they could do. A well to do man could still have a high position in the church, amass a fortune in trade, become a conquistador or join the military and make a name for himself there, become a scholar or advisor, or manage his father's estate and sit at home in luxury if he so desired. A woman really only had the last option
>>586083 >people ITT using a comfortable life as proof that you're not oppressed
If oppression means anything, it is first and foremost class oppression, and all across history being upper class meant your life was comfortable as fuck, mainly from the work done by serfs and slaves.
So yes, if you live a materially comfortable life, you cannot possibly be oppressed, and to think that you are, is literally, and ironically too, failure to see how privileged you are.
This is literally every single average 3rd wave feminist in the West.
>Owns an Iphone, a studio apartment, has higher degree education from a prestigious university >I'M SO OPPRESSED!
>>585763 >Women had power, it just wasn't formal. This isn't a complex concept.
Even informally women were just generally expected to obey men. It's like saying children are more powerful than adults because they get them to buy toys.
>Yes, and plenty of nobles, Louis XVI comes to mind, didn't even want power. Emperors and kings were some of the biggest dreamers and escapists
Oh, those poor oppressed kings!
>Yes, land requires management and costs money to maintain.
Yes, it also generates money and makes peasants toil and fight for you.
>Not to mention people want to steal/pillage it.
Good things those pillagers spared the women living on men's lands :^) Those lucky hobos with nothing to steal.
>We're talking about nobles. Queens are the epitome of that class.
Epitomizing a quality =/= statistically typical sample.
>never work, learn to read and write, live in the nicest houses available, and socialize on a nearly day to day basis
All of this applies to male nobles. Housewives often get bored TODAY with no work to do. The Middle Ages would've been even worse. Just because you're lazy doesn't mean everyone wants to be.
>The Mongols and Turks weren't always the most friendly with captives either.
Thank God women were never captives
>Are you honestly comparing civilian casualties to actually being a part of the fighting, in pre-gunpowder era warfare?
Both of them seem equally dead to me.
>Often times it is. It's very much a privilege to be excluded from poverty and civil war. No, I wouldn't like to be shipped off to go fight in foreign soil, I guess that makes me childish
Lol, women were never excluded from poverty. When I speak of being treated as children, I speak of restrictions on adult autonomy. Autonomy is the ability to make choices, regardless of whether you personally would like to make them. This restriction on women fighting in war was created by men, it doesn't derive from "female privilege" whatsoever.
>>586056 >be patrician girl >will never choose your husband, will never have your own belongings, will never have your own power >be pleb woman >can own your own property, won't be the slave of a paters familias your entire life, can do what your want, can have your own home, can choose your occupation
>>586347 You and >>585763>>586323 are acting like all women were nobles and all men were peasants. It's ridiculous. Women held less wealth and social prestige at every level of society. Royalty wasn't the same as nobility like many of you are conflating, either.
>>586377 They had no legal power, they did not own anything, they were always under the direct authority of their husband. I'm not implying they didn't have power, they were obviously tremendously influential, being the closest people to the most powerful men in history, but in terms of direct power? they were lower than capite censi.
>>586394 >Women held less wealth and social prestige at every level of society.
Yes they did. But things to not exist in a vacuum.
Just because a woman had less wealth and social prestige compared to her immediate contemporaries, i.e the men of the same class and rank in society, does not mean she is oppressed. It means that society is somewhat misogynistic, sure, but it is not oppression.
If you're telling me that a Victorian upper-class woman encountered anywhere near the amount of legal and social obstacles in her life, compared to a mine digging plebeian man, you are delusional.
>>586452 Slavery happened to everyone so I didn't think it would be rational to say one sex was slaved more than the other. >>586478 Male rapes are a probable before the Abrahamic religions took over, but after that I doubt it happened to much (for europe that is) because of the damnation of homosexuality. >>586485 That's probably true for most, but if you looked good enough you had a chance od surviving as a sex slave/concubine. Men most likely didn't get such a chance.
>>586489 Nobody is saying that except you. I'm saying that when that system exists and restricts women's freedom and power at all class levels, it is a kind of general oppression targeted at women because men specifically dominate her for her sex at every strata. Also, what's with your Victorian bullshit? This thread is about the Middle Ages not the 19th century you fucking pinko retard. The poverty of the Middle Ages meant female peasants did pretty much the same agricultural labour as most men and probably more domestic work as per usual.
>>586550 >Material wealth is second to none when it comes to determining oppressive situations in real life.
Men had the vast majority of the wealth and more options for upward social mobility, although the latter was limited in general. Even in richer households it wasn't guaranteed that women actually held wealth. How the fuck does skin colour relate to Medieval Europe anyway you soapbox socialist? Fuck off to leftypol.
The main thing I hated about literature classes in University is the idea of the oppressed young noblewoman having to have an arranged marriage. Meanwhile all of her needs are met and she can be nearly guaranteed that her children will be fine unless they fuck up massively. While this is happening, the Peasant couple will have their children be illiterate with very little rights until Napoleon comes along and uncucks their shit, at which point the nobility will cry in literature like little bitches about how they are being oppressed by social mores that they created and which massively benefited them.
Noblewomen were better off than basically anyone with position lower than that of their husband.
>>586926 Oh, please, most of the nobility were Godless degenerates. There were exceptions and benevolent rulers, but for the most part, the peasantry was no better or worse than the nobility in terms of virtue.
>>586550 >Material wealth is second to none when it comes to determining oppressive situations in real life. But doesn't follow from this that it's the *only* factor.
I don't know how to explain this without sounding like I'm talking to a 5-year old. Think about ice-cream, it have both eggs and cream. Most of it is cream. Yet it's retarded to claim there's nothing else but cream in ice-cream just become there's more cream in it than eggs
You claimed that material wealth is the *only* factor, something that's just downright false. Saying that noblewomen can't be oppressed in their role as women is as retarded as claiming white people weren't oppressed when taken as slave by turks because even if they're slaves they're still white.
>>586951 >They need a small, educated elite to make informed decisions for them yes because European history is filled with a noble class making educated and informed decisions gaining anyone but themselves.
>>586951 >therefore, we shouldn't give them some education and improve their status of living so that they appreciate what we are doing >meanwhile, we will do all of the things that both our religions have told us are wrong and will result in our damnation >we will destroy the bulwark that has held the Islamic tide away from us, which will result in large numbers of us being killed and disenfranchised >we will continue to fight petty squabbles that will weaken our realms while ignoring the looming threat posed by foreign powers, even though the most-aware of us are currently warning us about the threat posed >truly, we are the most competent of society
>>586976 Yes plebs were given education and everything else, yet 99% of them are still retarded as fuck and don't have a clue about what's best for society. The nobility was groomed for the purpose of ruling, and I would trust them more than the average football watching, beer drinking, retarded mouth breathing pleb voter
Women were repressed politically, but had less responsibilities. A homeless man is often more fucked than a homeless women and would be randomly lynched sometimes, however if a women is exceptionally ugly she may have it worse than males, however it's a fringe case.
This TL;DR's most of the "muh opressed womyn literally killed and raped every minute in the past human empathy was invented with feminism"
They believe in an original sin of sorts, which is being man. If you are a man you automatically wish to rape and kill everything in front of you and are only restrained by (???) despite multiple psychological tests saying otherwise.
They can't imagine a situation where a man who had legal rights to beat his wife would not beat his wife, because all men are evil from the start.
>>587540 He is saying that everyone not in favor of aristocracy is a "pleb". Therefore, it would seem he is claiming Aristocracy. I don't see anything wrong with asking for proof of his patrician status.
>>585434 Those men had the choice to ride and be in tournaments. Nobody forced them to do it, and most noblemen wouldn't ever just. Obviously rich women had it better than poor men during this period, but they were still very restricted in comparison to rich men.
>>585729 >4chan is full of NEETs so I'm sure a lot of you love the idea of a dependent life with no responsibility or ambition, but most people don't, and it's not like women had a choice in the matter. Plenty of people want to be kings. Are you fucking joking? Why do you think usurpers and conquests exist?
I'm not any of the other anons in this thread you were arguing with, but what you said is b.s! Working sucks, period. Even when people get careers they "like" that just means they get careers that make them not want to kill themselves every morning when they have to get up and be on their feet all day or fret with constant planning and decision making with lots of important things at stake. Literally if most people had a choice, they would win the lottery and never have to work and rather actually be home spending time with their kids more or just do fun shit. This is men and women included. I think you are one of those " NEETS" my friend.
>>587484 Uhm while it is true that not all (hell possibly even most men) beat their wives(especially around renaissance period) the fact that if a guy with issues was arranged to marry a women and if he beat here, there were no laws to protect her is pretty fucked. No one should be trapped in such a relationship which a huge possibility is that those laws allowed. Your claim is also equally absurd because it assumes that ALL men will be righteous and treat their wives well unless the wife does something crazy like bash the baby against the wall out of frustration/ mental illness or tries to kill him. This was and cannot be the case.
>>585594 >I can believe that young men like to kill shit. Except virtually any study on the subject shows that... they really, really don't.
The enjoy posturing about it. This is a very different thing.
I'm a young man by most definitions.
25, and armed to the teeth.
I've actually seen some violence, and ii's not a hting you get ewxcited about, or look back on fondly. It mostly just makes you feel old and tired. I'd REALLY love to live in a world where I didn't have any reason to keep weapons around.
It's fun at the time for me, and form everyone i've talked to-i'm an outlier. People are scared to fight, unless it's done under specific, and limiting rules.
also >MUH ARRANGED MARRIAGES
Peasant weddings in medieval Europe were literally as simple as two people walking up to each other and agreeing to marry. "I want to wife you" and "well guess you're my husband then" was good enough. Arranged marriages are for people with money, importance, and tiem for stupid bullshit they won't actually enjoy at all.
Unmarried noblewomen could do whatever they fuck they wanted with heir own property. The best knight in europe married a woman specifically because she owned an ABSURD amount of land, and she administered the land lead armies-successfully-while he was away.
when he was back, THEY did things. The Marshall and his wife rebuilt the town is the sort of phrasing you get.
>but MUH PRIVLEGES The men also got to risk taking a lance to the chest. It balances out.
When William Marshall was an old, old man-in his 70's-he lead a cavalry charge.
From the front.
Into a city.
He was not disgraced or poor. He had, to his own recollection-which was considered credible-bested 500 men in tournaments. He owned vast tracts of land. He had been regent of england, and was so powerful, he was referred to as "the marshal" despite the fact that EVERY court had a man serving as marshal.
>>589080 Continued: The man was so influential, he is a HUGE part of the reason for the manga carta being of any significance at all. He beat a french army on English soil, and brought the english from bring the laughingstock of the tourney circuit, to feared adversaries.
He was in command of the army that day.
His arms and armor were no fucking better than they were when he was 22, landless, and penniless, with no friends of import.
Maille, helm, a shield, a sword, a lance.
He certainly wasn't more skilled-he was so frail, his body failed him and he died in bed two years later.
The man lead from the front, despite being older than my grandfather, because honor demanded it.
It demanded that, despite all his accomplishments, despite having children to return to, and affairs ot settle, he hurl himself into the lances, arrows, and spears, headlong, and without concern for himself.
Shut the fuck up with your stupid oppression narrative.
Being shit on is the human condition, and both sexes perpetuate it FOR both sexes, constantly.
>>589080 >I'm a young man by most definitions. >25, and armed to the teeth. >I've actually seen some violence, and ii's not a hting you get ewxcited about, or look back on fondly. It mostly just makes you feel old and tired.
Okay tough guy, tell that to all the school shooters. I can cite others who enjoy it, but that's modern people. You can't just ascertain attitudes against violence 500-1500 years ago from that, because it was a lot more socially accepted then. The death penalty was more frequent, crime was higher, state power was less centralized, corporal punishment and torture were sanctioned, policing was disorganized and often unpaid, family feuds were more common, dueling and trial by combat were accepted, military services were less selective and religious hostilities were far more passionate.
>Peasant weddings in medieval Europe were literally as simple as two people walking up to each other and agreeing to marry. "I want to wife you" and "well guess you're my husband then" was good enough. ?Arranged marriages are for people with money, importance, and tiem for stupid bullshit they won't actually enjoy at all.
Arranged marriages weren't unknown to peasants and the transfer of wealth would favor the husband's family. Peasants could marry for love, but they'd need approval by the local lord and a priest, almost entirely male positions. Even when it wasn't formally arranged parents had a lot of power over who you married, especially the father. Married men could also fuck prostitutes whereas female adultery and fornication was viewed much more harshly.
>Unmarried noblewomen could do whatever they fuck they wanted with heir own property.
They were rare to begin with had little chance to make wealth.. Dowries and inheritance were major ways of gaining wealth and both favored men. Fathers had lots of control over unmarried daughters, and ex-husband's families over widows.
>>589080 >but MUH PRIVLEGES >The men also got to risk taking a lance to the chest. It balances out.
Women weren't magically protected from enemy armies or bandits running through a place and slaughtering people, in addition to the high death rates they suffered during pregnancy, and her husband's legal authority to beat and rape her . It's not like every man was conscripted to fight in every battle, and when they were, it was male authorities who were leading them and keeping women in the home. This system of dependence on men also made a widowed woman much worse off than a husband with a dead wife.
>he best knight in europe married a woman specifically because she owned an ABSURD amount of land... >When William Marshall was an old, old man-in his 70's-he lead a cavalry charge....
I don't know why you think individual cases prove society wide trends, or that they can even be attested to as accurately as broader trends. You clearly feel some autistic sense of heroic masculine bonding with them, though.
>Shut the fuck up with your stupid oppression narrative. >both sexes perpetuate it FOR both sexes, constantly.
Oppression narrative lmao. You mean overwhelming historical consensus. Nobody is denying men were oppressed in some ways, but the way you're trying to make it out like the middle ages were gender egalitarian is transparently ridiculous.
>>589014 >if most people had a choice, they would win the lottery and never have to work and rather actually be home spending time with their kids more or just do fun shit.
Women did work in the Middle Ages. If they were on a farm, they did the same farm work as men plus house work and child rearing. Noblewomen often worked in education or kitchens, and town women in textile workshops. Either way, all assets from it belonged to the husband.
Like what? There wasn't much "fun shit" to do. No electronics, less literacy and books, minimal travel, sparse neighbors, limited cuisine, hunting was for men etc.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.