Women in the past

File: 43545379789.jpg (116KB, 1024x882px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1024x882px

>>135384822
Sage goes in options field for dumb slide threads

Even the wifes of kings wanted to divorce
that tells you all you need to know about women

>>135384931
Fuck off faggot

>>135384822
>Did women ever REALLY have souls anons?
Ive contemplated that question
came to the conclusion that clearly they do

>>135385213
What led you to that conclusion?

File: 856486544458548.jpg (77KB, 749x900px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 749x900px

>>135384822

>>135384822

Women and men compliment each other when they mist rely on each other

Society has enslaved men to women through the tax system

Hence women now act like entitled goddesses

Most are too dumb to think outside of economic safety nets

>>135384822
>Were they ever content making a cozy home for a man they loved and respected?

yes, it's where women belong. female biology instructs women to have babies. female biology (eg. lactation) instructs women to nurture babies, raise children. where else could they be but the home?

look at other animals; females nest

File: 1498653462926.jpg (58KB, 480x1104px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 480x1104px

>>135386014

I'm not so sure. Animals have very simple brains. Women tend to get bored very easily and things can go bad very easily if you don't keep them entertained and occupied. I'm not sure I believe they truly understand things like selflessness and self respect, or even how to entertain themselves.

If you gave the women of the 30s or 40s the same tech we have today they would be vapid tinder whores in about 3 months.

>>135386346
>Animals have very simple brains.

so do women

>>135384822
>snapchat dog ears
Fuck off, normalfaggot

File: 05b4b44f25f4415ea8a28f4a08c8551a.png (137KB, 1920x1636px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1920x1636px

>>135384822
of course we weren't content, but we were also busy, house wifery has always been bullshit, people in ye old days all had jobs, even women, we just handed over all our shekels to the husband in the form of the trade good that he went and sold for us. delivering the spanking and the rape if we got out of line. We had to marry who our fathers told us to, often because women were so worthless you had to pay the groom to take one of us. theres a solid reason why nobody on my side of the fence is eager to go back to pre feminist times, retarded sjws or no. Being chattel blows no matter how much of pol wants to believe having muh children is gonna make it all better for my smol girl brain

>>135386346

in all seriousness, women are miserable today. they were happier in the 30s and 40s because they weren't pressured to go out in the workplace, socialize with strangers, be separated from their children, have responsibilities, etc.

things are fucked up these days, for men and women. this too shall pass. after the next war, relative normalcy will return

>>135386554
you've fucking lost it senpai, that life was the product of luxury and machinery, the next world war is going to fucking BTFO all that convinience out.

>>135386501

>Women Are More Unhappy Than Ever

>Two economists at U Penn conducted an exhaustive study of happiness and found that women's "subjective well-being" has declined, "both absolutely and relatively to men," as they put it. In fact, though women have historically had higher self-reported levels of happiness than men, today women are "reporting happiness levels" that are "even lower than those of men." (Men's happiness has dropped, too, but not as much as women's.)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2009/05/20/study_on_happiness_by_national_bureau_of_economics_finds_women_are_unhappier_than_ever.html

>the most interesting data may be that the women who strongly identify as progressive—the 15 percent who agree most with feminist ideals—have a harder time being happy than their peers

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_highbrow/2006/03/desperate_feminist_wives.html

tldr feminism is cancer, for women too

this one is long but well worth the read;

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/03/dont_hate_her_because_shes_suc.html

File: modern_women.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>135386554

> mfw this perfectly describes modern women

>>135387221
Fixed the unarchived clickbaiters

>http://slate com/blogs/xx_factor/2009/05/20/study_on_happiness_by_national_bureau_of_economics_finds_women_are_unhappier_than_ever.html
https://archive.is/0kMFp
>http://slate com/articles/news_and_politics/the_highbrow/2006/03/desperate_feminist_wives.html
https://archive.is/OyMtq

>>135384822
>Were they ever content making a cozy home for a man they loved and respected?
You're confusing the short period of time from 1850-1950 or so with the entirety of history. In reality, for the vast bulk of history women did hard farm work as well as house work. They weren't wilting flowers sitting around at home trying to make their men cozy - they were hard working people with wrinkles and dirty hands, farmers.
Don't become deluded by some fantasy.

>>135386647

no, too much technology is the problem. contraception, for example is making men less masculine and women less feminine. it's weakening the magnetic forces that bring men and women together successfully, manifest most clearly in the inability to procreate (2 become 1).

technology allows babies to exist away from their mothers via "formula", which btw, is nowhere near the nutrient value of breastmilk, plus breastfeeding is also essential for a baby's well-being, faith in the world, bonding with mother, etc. also why more kids have adhd and other problems today, and why so many little kids are on mind drugs. because mother is not there they get fucked up and because mother's not there to regulate, throw a drug at the poor little thing instead

of course not all technology is detrimental, but it's a sharp as fuck doubled edged sword and most people aren't careful enough to handle it safely

>Neglect Hinders Brain Development, Influences ADHD

https://psychcentral.com/news/2014/10/15/neglect-hinders-brain-development-influences-adhd/76182.html

>By holding him safe in your arms and giving nourishment from your body, you offer him a sense of continuity from pre- to post-birth life. Gazing into your eyes, your baby comes to understand that he is loved and protected and that you are there to provide for his needs as he adjusts to this new world.

>In addition, breastfeeding releases hormones in your body that promote mothering behaviors. This emotional bond is as vital as the nutritional benefit he receives from you. Scientists now tell us that infants learn best in a context of emotional closeness with an adult. Breastfeeding promotes a growing attachment between the two of you that will continue to play an important role in your baby’s development for years to come.

https://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/baby/breastfeeding/Pages/Psychological-Benefits-of-Breastfeeding.aspx

File: Ana Kasparian B 001.png (787KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

787KB, 1366x768px

>>135384931
Kys

File: 1500799117681.jpg (45KB, 500x506px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x506px

>>135387445
This, they didnt have dishwashers, mixers, freezers and washing machines back then. Housework took the whole day and if you include kids their hands were full. During the industrial revolution women worked in factories. When machines became more mainstream and every house owned a washing machine, Women got bored after their kids grow up. Cleaning your house now takes 2hrs max depending on where you live. Every human works and this 1950's ideal of the perfect housewive only counted for the richfags who had housemaids. Everyone works, it's human.

>>135387312
Holy shit. I have never seen such an accurate depicturing of western women. The Jews somewhat won. I really hate,... deteste German women. Every pure German girl that i know closely has cheated on one of their partners and don't want to marry...

>>135387561
>technology allows babies to exist away from their mothers via "formula", which btw, is nowhere near the nutrient value of breastmilk, plus breastfeeding is also essential for a baby's well-being, faith in the world, bonding with mother, etc. also why more kids have adhd and other problems today, and why so many little kids are on mind drugs. because mother is not there they get fucked up and because mother's not there to regulate, throw a drug at the poor little thing instead
jeeze you're stupid, they had formula back then too dumbass. and even before the time period you're talking about they had nannies who breast fed for the mother.

of course not all technology is detrimental, but it's a sharp as fuck doubled edged sword and most people aren't careful enough to handle it safely
technology is the lynchpin that allows a woman to sit on her hands and do nothing but babysit and clean and cook. there was nothing like that in any period of time before the modern era,. women had to be involved in crafts

>>135387445
>>135387901


It's an interesting point. Hard work on a daily basis lets your brain release all the feel good chemicals naturally, less chance you need to go chasing degeneracy for a high.

>>135384931

cuck harder

>>135387901
>This, they didnt have dishwashers, mixers, freezers and washing machines back then. Housework took the whole day and if you include kids their hands were full.
not really, the house cleaning was pretty light considering all the other work they had to do, and with the kids helping it was not all that hard. now, stuff in the home that we might consider home making now but would actually be a craft back then would be a different story, and would involve time but again, its now a craft since preservation and the like where necessary skills for the home maker. most of the women involved themselves in textiles, and was the common marketable skill peddled to the husband for his slave/wife to produce profit for.

>>135388661
I'd argue against that notion. normally it makes you more likely to chase the high, peasants partied like fucking crazy. it was pretty much the only thing to do besides work, not to mention back in the day the lord and lady, despite being abject rulers that usually sucked for these people, would even invite them to their (more lowkey) parties to divie out meat and keep the labor force fed. or at least in britibong land. They basically had nothing to do but hobbies with their crafts all day, which meant leasure time was reading if they could read, and fermenting stuff to drink.

>>135388868

textiles for most women wasn't about profit; it was about clothing her family.

>peasants partied like fucking crazy.

not like they do now. whoring around, living "independently", etc.

>>135388448

>jeeze you're stupid, they had formula back then too dumbass.

why you so upset? see what feminism is doing to women?

>“I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of ‘Women’s Rights,’ with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to ‘unsex’ themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection.”

regarding your claim, first, throughout the vast majority of history, "formula" has not existed. women may have supplemented with cow milk, or a wet nurse, etc., as necessary, but the modern idea of formula is just that - a modern phenomenon

regarding the specific claim, you're wrong there too. the widespread use of formula did not happen until the 50s

http://www.parentschoiceformula.com/articles/Infant-Formula-Timeline-What-Should-we-Feed-Baby.aspx

>technology is the lynchpin that allows a woman to sit on her hands and do nothing but babysit and clean and cook.

no, it allows women to sit on her hands and go shopping. without electronic washer/dryer, dishwasher, etc., women would spend a lot of their time cleaning. women are still obligated these days to cook, take care of children, etc.; however, many women (again, see contraception) are not having children, and there's fast food, etc.

>women had to be involved in crafts

like sewing, sure. that was something done in the home, along with the rest of her maternal and wifely duties. these things were not essentially in conflict. historically women have always worked in and around the home, while men went out

They were very happy to do that shit because the alternative was to plough a field with a donkey for 10 hours under the sun, chop a ton of wood or move heavy shit. So yes, they were happy and grateful not to have to go and fight the elements.

Today a housewife's only worry would be to fight all the feminists that tell her her comfy life taking good care of her kids and husband is somehow wrong.
It is pathetic how they try to convince females that rising your children for a few years is somehow less important that some dumb ass job.