Thread replies: 105
Thread images: 11
Thread images: 11
File: IMG_5790.jpg (83KB, 1024x683px) Image search:
[Google]
83KB, 1024x683px
What happened to the idea of women as the weaker sex?
>tfw just want a qt submissive who looks up to you
>>
>>1858837
Submissive wife
>>
>>1858837
Femdom happened
>>
>>1858837
No one likes being weak and submissive.
>>
Submissiveness isn't a desirable trait. It's boring.
>>
Feminism.
The feminist dream is living like Charlie Sheen. Making a lot of money, having a lot of sex and having a high status because of it.
Which shows that feminists are not very deep thinkers.
>>
>>1858837
>>tfw just want a qt submissive who looks up to you
Become someone worthy of being looked up to then.
>>
>>1858847
Thank God for that.
>>
>>1858870
Citation needed
>>
>>
>>1858876
/thread
>>
>>1859095
Definitely harder to do now but still not impossible.
Up until the 50s though you were basically guaranteed a wife like that just for having a job.
>>
>>1858837
Apparently they decided around 50 years ago to raise their standards by an incredible margin.
In the end they still want to live like that, but only for über-Chad, when they used to behave in a similar way for any non-autist.
>>
Post-industrial society has removed physical power as a superior trait from men.
>>
>>1859247
try post-industrial society has criminalised murder
>>
File: IMG_5691.jpg (53KB, 680x616px) Image search:
[Google]
53KB, 680x616px
>>1859199
>>1859127
>for any non autist
This is probably the thing that pisses me off the most nowadays. Women's standards skyrocketed while men's stayed the same
>>
Industrialization has made a lot of physical labor easier, and the type of previous occupations that women did before it (textile making, agriculture, and house maintenance) much more easier and more industrial. Women could work in more fields of occupation now, which was desirable, because it meant more human capital which often lead to less wages.
Because of this, both Capitalist and Controlled-economy societies now encouraged women to go out and work and be more economically productive. This made many of them more independent, and thus, the whole image of the submissive and weaker sex became less socially legitimate to them. Sure, the male body is better when it comes to combat and physically intensive work, but a lot of women before the industrial revolution rarely could make a living on their own, and naturally coerced to finding a husband and be submissive to him for financial survival and to appease social norms. Now with a lot of them being accepted in a lot of work-places, and able to pick up financial independent jobs in places that have little to no physical extensiveness involved, the only reason they have to stick around men is less for financial dependence now, and more for personal interest in them.
If you want a qt submissive wife, be a virtuous and wise man and find a girl who trusts you and your abilities more than herself and whats to stick around you for the benefits that come from that.
Or find a foreign mail-order wife who, in this type of modern world, is going to be a gold-digger.
>>
ITT: Society is the problem not me.
>>
>>1859305
tfw no wife who's with you because she's dependent on you
Sucks being made obsolete
>>
>>1858837
Seeing this thread make me glad being born in asian
>>
>>1858837
>Idea
>>
>>1858837
This thread made me glad feminism happened
>>
>>1858837
Mate, women are still extremely submissive by nature. You don't have to worry, but in order to have a submissive wife you must be capable of domination. Not in a negative way. Just in a way where you can lead, create security, and provide wisdom.
>>
>>1859285
Men are so insipidly self victimizing now. Men have always had to be reliable. What right do you have to a mate if you don't have the capacity to provide the best possible care for the offspring. Men need to be better in every way. Otherwise we are entirely disposable.
>>
>>1859440
Pic related
>>
No man is worth looking up to.
>>
>>1859451
To be disposed by whom?
>>
>>1859465
By society, To be soldiers, garbage men, construction workers. Shit tier bottom of the pyramid work with lower resources to raise children and foster security.
>>
File: IMG_5792.jpg (185KB, 1024x741px) Image search:
[Google]
185KB, 1024x741px
>>1859440
If you're in a western country enjoy it while it lasts
>>1859459
Rebellious slut
>>
>>1859474
The solution would be to encourage men to vote, not to remove the rights of half the population.
>>
>>1859465
other men....
>>
File: BodybuildingWoman.jpg (753KB, 1024x850px) Image search:
[Google]
753KB, 1024x850px
>>1858837
Women stopped being married off at their teens and getting pregnant all the time.
Then they got men's jobs and did just as well, so it turns out they aren't that much weaker as long as they try.
>>
>>
>>1859570
>encourage men to vote
You do understand that women make up the majority of the population in most western countries, right?
>>
>>1859474
>If you're in a western country enjoy it while it lasts
I will. It'll be around for a long, long time.
>>
>>1859583
>Then they got men's jobs and did just as well
not even close.
>aren't that much weaker
I have yet to see a war won only by women.
>>
>>1859588
>I will. It'll be around for a long, long time.
Maybe 30 years, after that it's the 3rd world.
Nietzsche's paradise turned out to be neither his nor a paradise.
>>
>>1859592
>not even close.
Proof?
>I have yet to see a war won only by women.
Because like I said they were too busy being valuable baby makers to grow a much more expendable army of men.
>>
>>1859583
>Then they got men's jobs and did just as well
But they didn't. Women are vastly outnumbered in all jobs that require hard labor.
>aren't much weaker
Medical studies and every single athletic organization in the world would disagree. There's a reason why female athletes don't compete against males in the Olympics. Female gold medalists would be easily beaten by males that didn't medal.
https://www.olympic.org/athletics/100m-men
https://www.olympic.org/athletics/100m-women
The female gold medalist in London was .96 seconds SLOWER than the male bronze medalist.
>>
>>1859603
>Proof?
ayy lmao
>>
>>1859609
>But they didn't. Women are vastly outnumbered in all jobs that require hard labor.
I'm talking during the world wars when all the men were being deployed. They proved capable enough to work almost, in not every field men do.
>Medical studies and every single athletic organization in the world would disagree.
Of course, but that isn't the standard. Even though on average women are probably weaker than men, if they wanted to they could be equal easily. They just don't want to as most wish to fill a "feminine role"
>>
>>1859626
>I'm talking during the world wars when all the men were being deployed.
In WW2 there were 11 million men enlisted at the height of the war. The population of the country in 1944 was 138 million. While women did fill the gaps, the majority of men were still doing their jobs in the states.
>if they wanted to they could be equal easily
No, they cannot. Women produce about half the testosterone that men do. A female has to work twice as hard to gain the same amount of muscle as a man. Testosterone also improves bone strength, and lack of testosterone is the main reason why females tend to suffer from osteoporosis in old age. Lack of test also increases the likelihood of muscle and tendon injuries and increases the required recovery time.
The military has been trying their hardest to find qualified female candidates, but so far almost all of them have washed out of special forces training. Females simply are not built to do the kind of physical work that men can do.
http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/95/1/23.full
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00235103
>>
>>1858837
Machines
>tfw just want a qt submissive who looks up to you
Maybe you should think about the other half of this, that in the world where men are the stronger sex you're driving railroad spikes for $1.50 a day and Della Mae still treats you like shit.
>>
>>1858837
>What happened to the idea of women as the weaker sex?
Nothing.
>>
>>1859665
Well, can't argue with that.
I will say that I'm in no way and expert, so I didn't really have a good idea of what I was talking about anyways.
And before anyone memes me I'm a man.
>>
>>1859587
This is why we should start to abort the girls and only have males.
>>
>>1859468
>By society
Society is not going to dispose of men, and none of the things which you listed aside from soldiery are "disposing" men. And even then, soldiery these days is something that men do of their free will because they wanted to go down that path.
In reality, your self aggrandizing post is not rooted in reality. There is nothing that can "dispose" those men who choose not to engage in having the "the capacity to provide the best possible care for the offspring".
>>1859580
Other..................... men............................ are.........................not..................intrested...............
>>
>>1859738
>Arguing on behalf of women
>Concede after a post that you have no clue what you're talking about
Your life is a meme
>>
>>1859782
Kinda, but there really wasn't anything in that post I could argue against. I aknowlaged women are weaker on averge and my prior statement was proved wrong.
I was bested and im willing to admit that.
That's not to say that I just blindly belive women are anything more than equal to men, but beside the physical side I don't think they are less either.
It's hard to argue that an entire half of the poulation is inferior to the other half.
>>
>>1859592
>I have yet to see a war won only by women.
Warfare is part of the many things they cannot begin to understand. The only satisfaction I have is to know they can never win anything as valuable as what we can obtain.
I think the idea of morality as defined in most countries was made up only so that the broads could be protected by law under any circumstance. Now why would you want that?
If there is no weaker sex there is no need for priviliged assisted justice. Humanity died with masculinity.
>>
>>1858876
This.
>>
>>1859810
>It's hard to argue that an entire half of the poulation is inferior to the other half.
Men have been running the show of human civilization since time immemorial with the only exceptions being extraordinary women
That was a pretty easy argument to make
Let me note that this is for the sake of argument, I'd be interested to hear anyone's defenses
>>
>>1859849
How is that an argument that every woman is inferior to every man? Do you seriously think the dumbest man on the planet is smarter than the smartest woman on the planet? I mean, really?
>>
>>1859874
>Do you seriously think the dumbest man on the planet is smarter than the smartest woman on the planet? I mean, really?
Putting words in my mouth, never said anything of the sort. But I think the fact that one gender has overwhelmingly controlled positions of power throughout history is pretty good evidence that there's a gap between the sexes in some regard. Wouldn't you think that if women were so equal in capability that there'd be more semblance of parity?
>>
>>1859874
Hes playing devils advocate anon
>>
>>1859890
>Putting words in my mouth, never said anything of the sort.
You did, though. That was the position you decided to defend for some reason. "an entire half of the population is inferior to the other half"
>>
>>1857508
>with their relatively unobtrusive and private religions
They have a shit ton of cults though.
>>
>>1859908
So are you gonna answer my question in regard to the disparity we've seen between men and women in power positions throughout human history or are you gonna call me a bigot? If you're so right why can't you provide a single defense for your views?
>>
>>1859849
Well in terms of inheritance the reason why there isn't more important queens is because men usually are picked, even if hes the youngest. This is because women, especially royal women were married off and had the duty of producing the heir, not being one. This makes sense, at least from a historical stand point because the women is typically impregnated soon and if your leader is pregnant then they will be even more busy and incapable to lead army's and the like.
The reason why there aren't more intellegent women in history is because women were the home makers for most of history and as such were not present for scientific study or lecture. This is compunded by the banning of women in a lot of institutions due to their sex and not being taken seriously when they do provide something to aid science.
>>
>>1858837
go to any country east of germany
>>
>>1859925
Maybe because women have been oppressed and marginalized throughout history? I mean, it seems much more likely to me, for example, that the reason Athens had almost no great female political figures or philosophers is because they were legally barred from political life and were very limited in educational opportunities and socially discouraged from pursuing them, rather than just chalking it up to "hurr women r just dum."
Not to mention that, if the reason women have done so poor historically is because they're inferior, then you wouldn't expect them to do much better when legal/socio-cultural barriers are lifted. That's the complete opposite of what happened, though, and ever since women's rights took hold women have drastically improved their position in the world and in many cases have come equal or almost equal to men. How do you explain this if the lack of historical prominence of women was due to their inherent inferiority rather than social, cultural, and legal/political barriers and discrimination against them?
>>
File: 1475861031750.jpg (17KB, 480x272px) Image search:
[Google]
17KB, 480x272px
>>1858876
Basically this
>>
>>1858870
>>1859440
>>1859452
>>1859451
>>1859580
>https://radishmag.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/pump-and-dump/
>https://radishmag.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/fair-sex/
>http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/04/the-sexodus-part-1-the-men-giving-up-on-women-and-checking-out-of-society/
>http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/09/the-sexodus-part-2-dishonest-feminist-panics-leave-male-sexuality-in-crisis/
>>1859570
>The solution would be to encourage men to vote
They were, but more men had the vote kept away from them, especially if were talking about minorities in Jim Crow/Civil Rights era America. And there were women that got the vote before men.
>not to remove the rights of half the population.
No rights were "removed" in the simple way you claim. And if they were it was way more than half the population considering when assholes made things bad for women in history men had it equally so or worse. Don't spout memes and perpetuate bullshit victim Olympics.
>http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/women-were-not-oppressed-by-not-having-the-vote/
>>1859468
>>1859849
>http://judgybitch.com/2013/09/17/what-would-happen-if-no-men-showed-up-for-work-today/
>>1858876
>Become someone worthy of being looked up to then.
You're ignoring the fact that many women have there heads too far up their asses nowadays the appreciate men. Women need to get try themselves together, stop complaining and understand why men have done what they've done and continue to do as well as how important those roles have been and are; among other things, for what OP >>1858837
somewhat wants to happen, to happen.
>>
>>1859929
Good points. Now your analysis makes me want to ask what occurred in the past century or so to cause such rebellion against the traditional roles of women being housekeeper/child producer? I'm sure you could always find individuals inclined to rebel against the social structures they perceived, but it seems like it was a pretty reasonable setup to me. Sure some women may feel/be pigeon holed but i don't know, seems like there's some merit to those traditional roles preserving the stability of a community? Not sure that's the best way to put it, but what I'm trying to get at is that if people are left alone to live their life and most men in the society have a wife, kids and a place for them to sleep then that population will generally be content to do as they do.
Did women historically scorn their role and see it as a bond of oppression like you'd hear from some lefty brainiac today? Sure maybe with such roles you'd prevent a girl from developing into a rocket scientist, or anything else beyond their traditional role for that matter, but those what-if-women-weren't-so-oppressed scenarios are something I'd be willing to sacrifice, assuming I were in such a position to decide, if it kept a population at large content and kept the men from fomenting larger-scale conflict. I could even see where one could argue that its selfish of women to forgo their classic duties and rebel against the organization of society if it were to upend the stability of said society.
Just brainstorming here, interested in any responses
>>
>>1858864
>t. has never fucked a woman before
>>
>>1859285
You cant reproduce quickly if you give a shit what females think off you, that is something our ancient ancestors learned a long time ago, look at all of these species that have these pointless mating rituals instead of just rapinng the female to breed quickly. One could say the female is a genetic filter but who cares let nature be the genetic filter and reproduce anyway.
Rape is the best reproduction method we are proof of that BECAUSE LITERALLY NONE OF US WOULD EXIST WITHOUT RAPE.
>>
>>1859995
>Maybe because women have been oppressed and marginalized throughout history?
Except they haven't. You better not fucking be the anon who posted
>http://desuarchive.org/his/thread/1837454/
You've already been told to fuck off of this board with you're ignorance, unwillingness to look at historical context in reference to what you're talking about( like you did here
>I mean, it seems much more likely to me, for example, that the reason Athens had almost no great female political figures or philosophers is because they were legally barred from political life and were very limited in educational opportunities and socially discouraged from pursuing them, rather than just chalking it up to "hurr women r just dum.")
>How do you explain this if the lack of historical prominence of women was due to their inherent inferiority rather than social, cultural, and legal/political barriers and discrimination against them?
Because for the majority of history men have been doing the majority of not only important but dangerous and life threatening shit for a hell of a lot of human history. Like >>1859468,
>>1859849 and I >>1860002 posted. Also women simply chose not to and very much did not want to do a lot of those important/dangerous things Even if you're not the anon that posted that other thread, fuck off with your 'oppresion' bullshit and victim olympics
>>
>>1859995
>and ever since women's rights took hold women have drastically improved their position in the world and in many cases have come equal or almost equal to men.
In title and status perhaps but I think you'd be hard pressed to convince a lot of people that women, AS A WHOLE, perform in many roles with the same aptitude and capability as men do. Same could be said vice versa for many roles but that only seems to be evidence that the sexes are not equal in many regards and that social policy founded on conjecture of equality is ill-founded
>>
>>1860021
Gender roles and the idea of women being homemakers was definitely shared by women themselves throughout history. I think this (i.e. social and cultural expectations and gender roles) are more important than any legal restrictions in determining the role of women throughout history, although if the latter were removed I guess it could have caused the former to gradually erode as well in some ways.
>>
>>1858874
>all women are base hedonists
Projection is not a healthy thing to do.
>>
File: IMG_5605.jpg (171KB, 536x640px) Image search:
[Google]
171KB, 536x640px
>>1860042
Women are stupid
>>
>>1859587
It's an insignificant difference, anon. Do you vote?
>>
>>1860042
>I think this (i.e. social and cultural expectations and gender roles) are more important than any legal restrictions in determining the role of women throughout history
I think that's a pretty good conclusion
>>
>>1858837
>What happened to the idea of women as the weaker sex?
This is literally sexual dimorphism in our biology. Notice how women will almost always lose to trans male to female competitors?
>>
>>1860021
>seems like there's some merit to those traditional roles preserving the stability of a community?
There is and tat is exactly what those roles do.
>trying to get at is that if people are left alone to live their life and most men in the society have a wife, kids and a place for them to sleep then that population will generally be content to do as they do.
Another good reason for such roles
>Did women historically scorn their role and see it as a bond of oppression like you'd hear from some lefty brainiac today?
Many women were content because they didn't believe in bullshit oppression and delighted in/understood the value of what they were doing and offering to their communites and society.
>but those what-if-women-weren't-so-oppressed scenarios
Again they weren't
>if it kept a population at large content and kept the men from fomenting larger-scale conflict.
It did
>I could even see where one could argue that its selfish of women to forgo their classic duties and rebel against the organization of society if it were to upend the stability of said society.
It was and is selfish. It's not about equality, just pure selfishness especially when they expected and now still do expect men to keep up their end of the bargain while they ignore theirs and shit on men when they still keep up their end
>>
>>1858864
Heterosexual women do.
>>
>>1858864
If feminism is so great then why has womens' happiness been going downhill for decades?
>>
>>1860092
If civilization is so great then why is it that stress, suicide, and depression are highest in highly developed countries?
>>
>>1860092
And how would one gauge the decline in something as abstract as happiness, especially over periods of time where you can't go back and ask people from the past what they thought and how they felt?
>>
>>1860021
Like I said earlier, I'm not an expert on the topic, so most of this is my understanding of history which isn't in depth, but I'll give you what I know.
>What made women rebel?
I would guess a high standard of living and world War 2's need for working hands. The high standard of living meant people had less children, since it was no longer needed. Part of the reason women were always pregnant is because the kids always died, so having less children mean less time pregnant and more free time. This came in the form of the women's workers movement when the soldiers we being deployed. While I am now aware this was much less influential than I thought I do belive this caused the spark since, now that women were able to work and study instead of rearing a child they wanted rights equality to that of men, since they were now equal in most other aspects.
>Did women historically scorn their role and see it as a bond of oppression
For many probably yes, for many however they probably didnt care or supported it
You see, when you grow up in a culture that support certain things many tend to go along with it even if the situation is awful. Some women would have probably thought of it as romantic, or their role, or even pious. However once they were able to think about it since they were no longer rearing 10 kids in between helping the husband as a farm hand many disired to do things outside of home making
>>
Men's bodies are kicked into high gear by stress much easier. Easier combat readiness used to be an advantage. In modern life it just fucks over your mental state and eventually phsical health.
>>
>>1860124
>Easier combat readiness used to be an advantage.
It still is for the most part
>In modern life it just fucks over your mental state and eventually phsical health.
See /fit/ and /asp/ for how that 's not necessarily true/ how that stress can be mitigated
>>
>>1860040
>Same could be said vice versa for many roles but that only seems to be evidence that the sexes are not equal in many regards and that social policy founded on conjecture of equality is ill-founded
This, desu famalamadingdong
>>
>>1859416
My girlfriend is very submissive in most ways, apart from things pertaining to our son-to-be (he's dude to be born any day now). She weighs in on decisions we need to make regarding important aspects of our life, but accepts my word as final. I work as a bridge painter/industrial painter, which is an INCREDIBLY physical job, especially when youre climbing and sandblasting, and one that is vital in order to maintain the infrastructure of our city (bridges, oil refineries, power plants water towers, or any other large steel structure). She always makes sure to tell me she appreciates what I put myself through to provide. Shit's cash.
I know that feel of yours, but bear in mind, I'm nearing 30 years old and have one divorce under my belt already. That relationshio destroyed me and every other one I've had sucked infinite balls because of all the female traits discussed in this thread.
>TL;DR just hang in there and you'll definitely meet a girl who respects and sincerely loves you, and is a total submissive qt
>>
What happened to the idea of men being the masculine providers and warriors, not losers posting cartoon girls on a jap imageboard
>>
>>1860604
Do you not see the irony in your lamentations?
>>
File: IMG_9522.jpg (10KB, 156x170px) Image search:
[Google]
10KB, 156x170px
>>1860623
First loser detected
>>
>>1860102
Insufficient data in less developed countries.
>>
File: 342516.jpg (31KB, 564x564px) Image search:
[Google]
31KB, 564x564px
Men dropped the ball. Even Saint John Chrysostom says men need to start being more submissive to their wives, because if they can't even control themselves outside the house, they have no business being the boss inside the house. Yes, he continues, the man is to be the head of the one body of husband and wife, but if he puts his body over his head outside the house, he should start following the same procedure inside the house (by putting the wife's authority over the husband's) to correct this.
Men continued to cheat on their wives and use harlots and things like that right and it wasn't seen as a big deal. They talked crudely, they went to strip clubs, they partied and got drunk, all this Saint John Chrysostom reprimands them for.
>>
>>1860114
They've started collecting data in the 1950s, at the supposed height of the patriarchy and women's reported happiness has been going downhill ever since
>>
>>1858837
>>tfw just want a qt submissive who looks up to you
Sounds like you want a pet more than a companion.
Why is it considered unrespectable for a man to have a wife who control him but not for a woman who has husband who controls her? Both should be unrespectable; an adult should have their own agency and independence and not live a life of a child or slave with someone else telling them what to do.
>>
>>
>>1860701
Hello legbeard
>>
>>
>>
File: 1475867130412.jpg (69KB, 400x334px) Image search:
[Google]
69KB, 400x334px
>>1858864
>No one likes being weak and submissive.
There's literally an entire masochist scene shitlord.
>>
>>1860867
>>1860938
>/his/- r/feminism
No but really your "strong womyn don't need no man" shtick is old and blowed out like your holes. Most women won't throw themselves at any old guy but they will go nuts for an alpha. Look at how Emma Watson slobs all over weedman in that pic on the Internet.
And like
>>1861079
says there's literally whole books like 50 shades where women get off to being some dudes fucktoy
>>
>>1861203
>le only people who disagree with me are women
I said a person should be independent and their own person first. You're basically saying women should be mindless, obedient fucktoys for big alphas and when they're not they're unhappy.
>>
>>1861203
>says there's literally whole books like 50 shades where women get off to being some dudes fucktoy
And I'm into femdom, doesn't mean I'd actually like a woman to control my life and force me to do whatever she wants.
>>
File: IMG_5602.jpg (160KB, 794x610px) Image search:
[Google]
160KB, 794x610px
>>1861260
It's in women's desire to be mans helper and feel taken care of by him. Our ancestors knew this
>>
>>1861435
>muh judeo-christian morals are how everyone everywhere always has been
>>
>>1860070
House work in the past was a lot, fantastically more, demanding than at the present.
Furthermore it should be pointed out that that the idea of the male breadwinner is not a universal phenomenon; there was a reason why there were all the women working in the mills in the times of the Industrial Revolution. Yes, for some classes there didn't need to be a female worker too, but for a lot of women they still had to work.
>>
Women are submissive as fuck.
I don't know what you're talking about.
This is women
>Submissive
>Submissive
>TRY TO START SOME FUCKIN' SHIT
>GET A BIG HEAD TRY TO MAKE A POWER PLAY
>ohshitifuckedup submissive submissive
>submissive
>submissive
>FUCK ME HARDER *MOAN*
>Submissive
>POWER PLAY I THINK YOUR MOM IS A FAGGOT
>"u fuckin wot m8?"
>submissive submissive
Women always just try to break the mold sometimes but then retreat if you stand your ground. Always. But they'll be back to say some fucked up shit eventually.
>>
>>1861435
"dsSuch comparisons, however, are completely misleading, since they ignore the
fact that the labour market participation of German women in 1939
was higher than that reached by Britain and the United States even at
the end of the war.111 In 1939, a third of all married women in Germany
were economically active and more than half of all women between the
ages of 15 and 60 were in work. As a result, women made up more than
a third of the German workforce before the war started, compared to a
female share of only a quarter in Britain. A year later, the share of
German women in the native workforce stood at 41 per cent, compared
to less than 30 per cent in Britain. Not surprisingly, over the following
years Britain caught up. But even in 1944 the participation rate for
British women between the ages of 15 to 65 was only 41 per cent, as
against a minimum of 51 per cent in Germany already in 1939. In large
part, this difference was accounted for by the structural differences in the
British and German economies. Of Germany's 14 million women
workers in 1939, only 2.7 million worked in industry. By far the largest
sector of women's work was peasant agriculture, which in 1939
employed almost 6 million women. By contrast, of Britain's 6 million
working women fewer than 100,000 were employed on farms. As we
have seen, the burden of maintaining the small peasant farms that
dominated German agriculture fell disproportionately on women's
shoulders. And as farm men were recruited away for the war, this burden
grew ever more arduous. In areas such as Wuerttemberg and Bavaria,
with dense populations of peasant farms, female workforce participation
rates already exceeded 60 per cent in 1939."
Hitler's Reich sure didn't live up to his vision, given that so much of its female population was working.
Those decadent capitalist democracies you probably criticize given the person you're quoting would be closer to the ideal.
>>
The elites needed to control the massive world population so men were feminized through the media, phytoestrogens and manufactured sociopathic bullying systems to be easier to control. It was then made illegal to assert dominance over other people, even if they wronged you in public directly. Men became cowardly, effeminate, sneaky cunning snakes who only gained status, money and power by being as deceitful, effeminate and underhanded as possible.
Thread posts: 105
Thread images: 11
Thread images: 11