Thread replies: 8
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: 1457816000970 (2016_08_24 05_26_26 UTC).jpg (23KB, 552x630px) Image search:
[Google]
23KB, 552x630px
I don't find it fair that my original post critiquing an aspect of feminist theory as applied to historical time periods was reported and I want a reprieve. Seriously, just because someone disagrees with an aspect of how feminists thinks doesn't mean they are from /pol/ and or even hate feminism. I clearly put forth well argued reason(even citing a past feminist historical article from a cultural anthropologist) as to why I believe a particular aspect of feminist theory being repeated over and over these days in regard to historical societies shouldn't be valid. Yet, people assumed I was from /pol/. At least read the entire post and think on it before you dismiss it as a /pol/ bait thread, especially if it is a long post.>>2944866.
Clearly curtailing of women's sexual activities was more than men's in the past was a double standard but in a world without birth control and proper paternity testing, of course it would have had to be and of course polyandry wouldn't really be a thing.
The primary issue(real problem) was an insistence that women couldn't solely inherit property even if she was the only child or that a woman could not participate in certain education or trades even if a family had nothing but daughter. Those sexual "double standards" were only natural considering how men and women differ biologically and that many [sexist] cultures prioritized male heirs or "expertise" [falsely] believing women to possess none.
Seriously fuck this board if it's going to come to this.
>>
>>2947917
nice thread faggot
>>
>>2947925
fuck off and actually create discussion.
>>
This is neither history nor humanities. It's just you complaining.
This isn't the place for complaining. Please help keep /his/ clean from meta threads, generals and /pol/content.
Thank you.
>>
>>2947957
no OP but a meta thread is allowed by decree of /Hiro/hito
>>
"& Humanities" doesn't mean that anything goes.
I don't know what was going through the mod's head, but it was probably something along the lines of, "This post is overwhelmingly more likely to generate discussion about modern political movements (e.g. modern feminism) than the history of feminism or feminist theory." Fair or unfair, that's how it has to go sometimes; even now a fuck of a lot of /pol/ threads slip through because the author dropped a few dates or mentioned some fucking anthropologist they haven't even read because all they really want to talk about is how SJWs suck and niggers are subhumans.
Feminist theory falls under "& Humanities" but it's also a modern political movement. It's a gray area. It's not like you were banned, so suck it the fuck up.
>>
>>2948345
But this isn't /his/ meta, it's /thisguys'spost/ meta.
>>
>>2948393
The point of my post was to discuss treatment and interpretations of historical practices and gender-roles by feminists. It was historical in nature along with some humanities. I wanted to go in depth about the main causes of female oppression and sexism historically and how differences in sexual repression wasn't one of them considering the goal of marriage was to repress both men and women in some way. Women just happened to be different.
Thread posts: 8
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1