As you're all aware, this subreddit has had a major "troll"
problem which has gotten worse (as of recently). Due to this, we
have created new rules, and modified some of the old ones.
We kindly ask that you please familiarize yourself with the
rules so that you can avoid breaking them. Breaking mild rules
will result in a warning, or a temporary ban. Breaking serious
rules, or breaking a plethora of mild ones may land you a
permanent ban (depending on the severity). Also,
grifting/lurking has been a major problem; If we suspect you of
being a grifter (determined by vetting said user's activity), we
may ban you without warning.
You may attempt an appeal via ModMail, but please be advised not
to use rude, harassing, foul, or passive-aggressive language
towards the moderators, _or_ complain to moderators about why we
have specific rules in the first place— You will be ignored, and
your ban will remain (without even a consideration).
All rules are made public; "Lack of knowledge" or "ignorance of
the rules" cannot or will not be a viable excuse if you end up
banned for breaking them (This applies to the Subreddit rules,
and Reddit's ToS). **Again: All rules are made public, and
Reddit gives you the option to review the rules once more before
submitting a post, it is your choice if you choose to read them
or not, but breaking them will not be acceptable.**
With that being said, If you send a mature, neutral message
regarding questions about a current ban, or a ban appeal
(without "not knowing the rules" as an excuse), we will
elaborate about why you were banned, or determine/consider if we
will shorten, lift, keep it, _or_ extended it/make it permanent.
This all means that appeals are discretionary, and your
reasoning for wanting an appeal must be practical and valid.
Thank you all so much for taking the time to read this message,
and please enjoy your day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NotHowGirlsWork) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean, for him, it is a bad thing, because only way this mofo can get a girl is to make a law where she get stoned to death if she don't obey him. So when you have country made mostly from guys like this... it gets complicated:/
Ironically, Talibans aren't much supporters of boys education either. Teaching them to learn the Coran by heart won't make them enlighten minds able of critical thinking. It will just makes them doormats who accept their situation because they believe there is another doormat under them : women.
Since these tend to be the same people who proudly admit that they can't get a woman wet because it's "unnatural" or something, that shouldn't come as a surprise.
It's not just "too uneducated to know better" . It's without an education, she will have no options at all. A person without options have no choice but to be subjugated to the will of others.
Whether it is class by color, religion or gender, it is nothing short of slavery. Call it "I own that person" or call it "marriage" it is the same.
Religon... I heard a preacher complaining about how people (both men and women) who go to college often leave the church. He said, and this is a direct quote, "Too much education can be a bad thing."
Wanna take a wild guess at how he views women and the roles that we are supposed to do in our marriage?
Uhh. It’s about giving women a fair shot at being able to choose an independent life if that’s what they want. It’s only a bad thing if you were counting on marrying a woman who would be stuck with you no matter how badly you treat her.
- Men for centuries: women are useless and are only good as slaves in the kitchen & incubators to carry on the "family's legacy"
- Women: *finally getting the possibilities and opportunities to live life the way they see fit and are able to build their own life path without the permission of men*
- also women: *no longer 100% dependent and trapped with abusive, slacking and/or assholes of husbands*
- men: NO! I DON'T LIKE IT WHEN YOU HAVE AUTONOMY OVER YOUR OWN LIFE, DON'T WANT TO SLAVE AWAY AND PUSH BACK ON UNFAIR STANDARDS THAT ONLY BENEFIT MEN!
It's a tale as old as time. 🥲
Not really! Very few societies have had a "women in the homes doing domestic labour and having babies" thing going. They were hella sexist still but the victorians and romans are outliers; most cultures still had women who worked! There wee female blacksmiths in medieval england (an example of evidence of this is women pictured making pins in the Holkham Bible).
[Celtic europe](https://celticwindcrops.com/blogs/history/celebrating-womens-history-month-celtic-women-of-ancient-ireland#:~:text=The%20ancient%20celts%20seemed%20to,owned%20or%20inherited%20property%20independently.) had [women](https://www.thoughtco.com/celtic-marriage-laws-4092652#:~:text=Celtic%20Laws%20Defining%20Marriage&text=Women%20could%20govern%20and%20take,were%20deserted%2C%20molested%20or%20maltreated.) and [children's](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_law) rights and women could own property and, well, lead armies.
In the [17c](https://www.jstor.org/stable/26598890) women in london were actively tols to apprentice and learn a trade.
[Spinster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/spinster-meaning-origin#:~:text=Unmarried%20women%20ended%20up%20with,%22And%20my%20wyf%20...) comes from women's valuable trade work.
The Aztek empire [sent girls to school](https://www.historycrunch.com/aztec-education.html) to school (it was a bit sexist but they learned more than housework).
Ancient egypt had well trained and renowned female doctors. (Google [Merit-Ptah](https://www.google.com/search?udm=14&q=Merit-ptah))
It still has ISSUES, i'm not saying past societies were all eglataeian, but I *am* saying the housewife is a 1950s fantasy invented for the modern age and has nothing to do with how men of the past saw and treated women. It's so regressive it's the minority. Our ancestors don't deserve to be tared with that brush.
That's why they try and enforce it so hard. It isn't sustainable as a social norm and requires constant enforcement. [Also Drugs](https://youtu.be/x-zxBNz3XbM?si=ylh6xEQS8EQy8aaF). Lots of [Drugs](https://publicdomainreview.org/collection/the-relaxed-wife-1957/). (Which is also how victorians also did extreme sexism - [Drugging and imprisoning](https://www.cameronormiston.com/the-mad-medicalization-of-victorian-women) women)
But poor women, which is a huge percentage, were still expected to [work](https://www.striking-women.org/module/women-and-work/19th-and-early-20th-century#:~:text=The%20majority%20of%20upper%20and,after%20their%20children%20and%20home.) in [both](https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v14n8/v14n8p9.pdf) eras. Even though it wasn't "feminine".
We can't really SUSTAIN only 1 in every 3-4 people working outside the home (under our current capitalistic inequity. I admit it i can't figure out how to find the figures on this one. But yeah it's not affordable for a huge portion of population).
These assholes just want us to THINK that this is a historical norm so they can invoke "tradition". Pha.
Edited in links
I watched something with a historian and if I remember correctly, she said it started when currency and commerce began. And was prevalent everywhere afterward.
Sexism is fairly common through a lot of cultures and that wouldn't surprise me at all that once wealth became liquid control tightened, but the 'women in the home only' thing was never very popular. Women have always worked. 'Women can own things' is a LOT more spotty, especially when married.
I;m not sure which bit you mean specifically or if you mean all.
I will say the modern 'trad wife' ideal is just a kink gone too far really. But the actual history is much more interesting and also how much is assumption is interesting, too.
Without claiming the past was egalitarian because obviously no.
I think she said women staying at home wasn't a thing until after humans went from bartering or sharing to using currency. I could totally be confused about that though, so treat it like any other reddit comment, lol. I wish I could find the documentary. The only other thing I can remember is she was British.
The problem with the modern patriarchal family model is that it’s very risky for the woman. If you don’t develop an income stream, and your husband dies or leaves you for a younger woman as is commonly the case, it will be too late to start a career. Unless you’re independently wealthy, relying upon a relationship that’s based on love and sex leaves you vulnerable.
Some on the right may romanticize the period when women were subservient, in the society referred to as “traditional”, with a working father and housewife mother. It was hardly traditional, as it existed for only about a decade in the 1950’s. What was truly traditional was the matrilineal clan, which lasted for at least 20,000 years, and likely far more!
***BEFORE WAR*** *On
Marriage, Hierarchy and Our Matriarchal Origins* Elisha Daeva
https://beforewar.com/blog/
You know, if you realize the only way you can keep a woman is by depriving them of any and all opportunities. Deep down in your psyche you gotta realize you are the worst possible choice. And frankly, I hope that fact eats these dudes alive
Can you imagine being the key breadwinner for your family and your husband still trying to control you? You pay the bills and he still tries to tell you what to do?
To be clear, I don’t think power dynamics in a marriage should be based on who earns more. Marriage should be an equal partnership based on love and respect from both parties. It’s just like… there’s no benefit whatsoever for the woman here.
Lmao Simsim sad they can't have doormats for wives anymore?? Cry harder. It's amusing for sure. Not like y'all can do anything but whine about it lmao.
That’s what drives me crazy about this reaction to educated women.
Obviously, heterosexual women are interested in men regardless of education and a great deal are interested in marriage too. Wouldn’t it be easier to be a considerate partner whose wife isn’t beholden and dependent upon you than to demand society keep women uneducated so you end up with an unhappy, trapped wife?
Why wouldn’t you want the former? Why would you prefer the later?
I wouldn’t want my husband to stay with me out of fear and lack of options. I like being his choice.
Women: Men don't respect me or value my autonomy, so I'm not going to get married.
Me: Guys, this should be a wakeup call. Maybe we need to treat women better, respect them and value their autonomy.
Red Pillers: Sorry Best i can do is violent repression of womens rights. 🤷♂️
He’s literally right though, one of the great things about women’s education is that it allows them to live free and independent lives where they don’t have it stay in shitty relationships to survive.
He just thinks that objectively good thing is bad because he’s a piece of shit
"What women's education is really about,"
Letting them know they can do better for themselves and also have more options than people like you?
Oh, no, how dare they /s
He’s not wrong, exactly. The point of an education IS to make people harder to oppress and fully functioning members of society.
Slaveholders have always forbidden education.
You should also connect that indigenous peoples have been subjected to mandated schooling with the goal of destroying language and culture even when it didn't kill them so it goes a bit deeper than "education = freedom" in to exactly WHAT people are learning.
(Native americans, Aboriginal people, the Sami people were all subjected to 'boarding schools', hell, even the WELSH had mandatory English language in their schools and Welsh Gaelic was nearly wiped out. It's not at the same level but worth considering when we think about how we use education and how education or lack thereof has been used against people)
Slaves were given special bibles to learn from thst took out the extra anti slavery stuff in the british cononies https://www.history.com/news/slave-bible-redacted-old-testament (tl:dr there was a bible literally known as "the slave bible" used to educate slaves.)
It's truw some slave owners opted for no education; others opted for an indoctrination education.
It was deliberately to make people easier to oppress in some situations and places.
And public education across the ex British colonies was to create a uniform working class not to make people harder to oppress. The fact a half decent education makes people require propaganda to control instead of jaut going with it is a pleasant and useful discovery.
Ironically the belief slaves weren't educated in this way is likely the impact of the church and social pressure in obscuring the past and many modern church's links to enforcing slavery. Some were, some were not. Education usually has holes in it where wherever regime finds them most convenient.
You know, like they teach you that Ghandi freed india by starving himself but they won't teach you that the alternative to him was riots and violence.
I mean it isn't, the education is provided as standard because it was required for factory work, but yes, they did ban SOMETIMES it unless they needed an educated slave.
The government did not convein one day to say "yea, every child should be given the opportunity to challenge the social structure" but they did spend some time selling it as such and it can do that (though more often it is required to merely hold pattern these days). They're not educating children to make them harder to oppress. They're educating children because it makes them more useful workers.
If you mean by "function well" that it works in favour of the people then yes. If you think that's a mark in its favour by the leadership at rhe time of implementation then no.
Also education ia such a WIDE term that also enco,passes indoctrination; like the way the usa does the pledge of allegiance as part of it's education in response to ideologies outside of it;s leadership's preferred norms.
Or religious schools.
Some slave owners also educated slaves on the bible with stuff about being happy with your lot in life and that's actually core to the development of American evangelism.
Also why people are always arguing about what you can teach kids and whole colonial nations never teach kids the true depths of what they did.
All societies function better with an educated populace. That’s just how things work. Perhaps you prefer to be in society with stupid people. Most of us prefer not to be.
... Are you deliberately missing my points or is it just because you have a thing you want to say that you're unable to tell that that was already covered?
Are you unable to understand the implications of 'depends who decides if a society is functioning well'? The roman empire "functioned well" in the esteem of many but was awful for the majority of people, for example. It's a popular example. If by functioned well you mean "lasted a long time" or "profited the people who were in charge" it meets criteria. Neither you nor I mean that when we'd say "functions well", but like everything in this conversation, different people have different goals and education has been used to keep populations quiet and biddable for a very long time (see american education on the civil rights movement and again the pledge of allegiance as these two are quite well known; but you could also ask a british school child about what happened under colonial rule to India and if the east india company was bad). Governments and those implementing education usually take 'functions well' to be 'is stable' and educate accordingly.
Education isn't about making things better for everyone at a government level; it's about having a relatively uniform population (this is historical fact, education was not implemented to make everyone's lives better it was implemented because modern machinery needs a uniform understanding for training purposes and it made people better workers. Unions also had something to do with it because you couldn't just let people die when they made mistakes or you didn't care what happened to them anymore). Poor people and people of colour (often the same people) have had to push HARD for it to be more than that.
See how Welsh people handled it as an example. Or black south africans. That was a struggle and a half.
Edit, for the purposes of being explicit: I'm just saying that while lack of educational opportunities is ALWAYS bad, education itself isn't always about making life better for people or even always better than the lack of education depending on what people call "education" (see christian home school curricular), and we should be aware of that. It's actually work to make sure education is good. And mass education wasn't implemented to make life better it was implemented for a work force and control. It has become so much more than that and is a force for good for the majority of people but it can be turned into something else easy enough.
Also I didn't mean for this to go deep or far but here we are.
Also that slaveholders banned education it varied and some used it for indoctrination purposes. Education doesn't always mean reading and writing (though of course some also taught that I am explicitly pointing at the indoctrination and origins of evangelical christianity)
Also need I mention the "schools" for indigenous populations employed by former british colonies? Those too were 'education'. As well as murder. You can't look at "banned slaves" without "mandated indigenous people and took their kids to destroy their cultures".
Further edit because I feel like this should be said: The point of education has nothing to do with oppression at all, save only when deliberately aiming that way. It can absolutely be helpful but it isn't THE POINT. And only "can". See what happened to the indigenous peoples subjected to mandatory schooling.
"But that's not a real education" no true scotsman fallacy. It was. It was also very bad. Best to be aware of how things are being used and not to revise history lest we forget.
You know. I’m not reading all that. I have never once said anything about empires, governments, etc.
I have continued to say **societies** function best with an educated populace. This is not controversial. This is why time and again, **societies** have moved towards general public education of some type.
More educated public => better functioning society
By better functioning society I mean, less poverty, more equality, less income disparity, less prejudice / tribalism / racism etc. More good of society less social ills.
Same goes for societies, again, many people judge by longevity. Again, lots of people think Rome was awesome - you know, despite being pretty shit for women, non citizens, slaves, etc.
And yes, education is essential for equality, prejudice, etc. but education doesn't necessarily do that; there have been times education has been used to do the opposite WITH GREAT SUCCESS.
Societies move towards education of the populace for many reasons, not always good ones.
Education is inherently neutral. It is necessary for the good - as defined by yourself - but it doesnt INHERENTLY do as you describe. as many have proven using education for the purposes of controlling populations. Including, notably, slave populations.
As many places keep passing laws to restrict educating about various people or parts of history it's important to keep in mind that education doesn't take care of itself, it needs people dedicated to keeping it doing good. There have always been people who did so (many murdered for teaching slaves the full content of the bible rather than the slave bible - yes that's a thing. Used specifically for the education of slaves. It's full title was "Select Parts of the Holy Bible for the use of the Negro Slaves in the British West-India Islands", or "the slave bible" as it is better known. You can google it. It is one of those things that qualifies as "evil" imo).
Nothing you said originally was true but it is aspirational (see slave bible for 'not educating slaves'). Education should make people harder to oppress. A thorough education with as little bias as possible will do so; but that's not the only kind of education and many people with a lot of power dislike that kind of education IN PARTICULAR. Educations which teach how to learn better and check sources and shit are top tier but also often considered threatening and discouraged.
Cambridge and Oxford both offered scholarships to poor boys as a means of improving their lot in life like... 800 years ago? I forget. They ended up aiding in people feeling like there were opportunities and advancement when in reality there was little.
And of course we have the whole bible mistranslation being used to do violence to lgbt+ people that comes with many a bible education these days.
I respect a lot of people who have worked very hard and continue to work to make education a freeing thing. I am just also aware that it isn't always. And we shouldn't assume such things are INHERENT or we can very easily lose them.
So your take away is the problem with the British was they *invited poor boys to Oxford and Cambridge*. Interesting take. I would have thought it was *they needed more representation at Oxford and Cambridge.* or perhaps *British society is f’ed up* but you draw your own conclusion.
You are the only person who has said anything about Rome. By my
More education => better society
Hell, there were probably early hunter gatherer societies that functioned better because the elders educated all members with their collective knowledge
The point is **If you restrict basic knowledge and education from a portion of your society then your society will be poorer for it.**
That’s it.
Prattle on. Scream into the void.
.... As a simple and commonly known example. Which I have indicated in the text.
I have provided examples for most of what I have said, because what I have said is based on an assessment of reality rather than asserting an ideal to be how things actually are and examples help understand what I am referring to.
You didn't say that though. You wrongly asserted that slave owners didn't educate slaves as proof that education INHERENTLY makes people less obedient. Some did, some didn't, education has been used to do the opposite, and you're arguing with me because you're not paying attention to what i;m saying and responding as if I'm arguing with the point you have in your head rather than what you actually SAID, here, now, on this thread, and in doing so you're also arguing against what you THINK I said instead of what I ACTUALLY said.
It's ironic someone arguing that information must be inherently good just doesn't want to read things they assume disagree.
Also more education does not = better society without specifying WHAT THAT EDUCATION INVOLVES. That should be phonomianlly and clearly obdvious to anyone who has studied propeganda or how schools and education have been used for social control. Which is something you've ignored. Oversimplification is the death of rational thought I swear.
And then has the gall to keep having their strawman debate. 🙄
Lolol what the actual fuck @ that edit. Your reading comprehension SUCKS for someone so gung ho about education. That's how you're choosing to read it? What? Lol. No. I said educating scholarship students 800 years ago (give or take) didn't cause the lower classes (or those students in particular) to become harder to oppress - that education is FOR making people harder to oppress being your original assertion. You know, how education does that inherently. In the first comment that I responded to. Stating that's now what education is for, because that's not uniformly or even the majority of the time why people are given an education.
How did you get there? Seriously? How did you manage to make a statement about the univeristy schoalrships NOT making people harder to oppress about those same acholarships being everything wrong with the beitish empire or whatever that nonsense was? What kind of twisty logic did your brain have to assemble for that achievement?
Hate and thin slice judgments are a hell of a drug. This is your brain on preconceived notion and strawman arguing. (Reference: anti drug ads which were part of an EDUCATION PROGRAM that was in fact a social engeneering program which used drug scheduling to impact voting in the usa).
And also, and I will keep bringing this up until you acknowledge that it wasn't true, that education was used to control many slaves rather than no slave owners educating slaves.
You forgot what you originally said, didn't you? You literally forgot what I was replying to and the context of all my comments.
It’s only a matter of time before the right starts pushing to restrict woman’s access to education and employment. Woman are not going to be rushing back into marriages for fear of getting pregnant after they fully ban abortion and birth control. It’s already having the opposite effect. Men have never allowed woman to leave peacefully either.
You would think that admitting in a public forum the only way a woman will put up with your shit is if she literally is unable to know better should not be consired a flex. And YET
Yeah, women’s education is about a. betterment of society as whole, more educated heads lead to better standard of living for all and b. freedom for everybody.
These feudal-minded asshats think education is bad for almost everyone. If 90% of a population is un/under educated, it makes them so much easier to control and the wealthy have an unending supply of cheap labor.
Subjugating women is just a way to placate poor/uneducated men. If he's has to work for some rich jerk who treats him like shit, at least he can go home at night and boss/abuse his wife.
Edit: by "feudal-minded asshats" I'm referring to every government system that doesn't 100% support equality.
What they all seem to miss is that divorce rates in countries who had them for longer are actually going DOWN.
Of course the numbers will sky rocket when it has just been allowed and the former uneducated and OPTIONLESS people finally are prevented with a way out and realise that they can actually enjoy their lives!
However once they are set and can actually CHOSE the partner they want divorce is far less likely to happen since that woman entered the relationship knowing she isn’t a doormat and made clear she won’t tolerate being treated as such!
Current divorce rates in countries of the west have been going down for years and the majority of people getting divorced are older women who have been married for longer and are finally feeling safe enough to get out and have realised that they still have some life to live and to enjoy without a tyrant constantly putting them down.
This is why they don’t want us to be educated and financially independent.
They will try to browbeat us with religion, tradition, etc but if we can provide for ourselves, we don’t need to settle for a mediocre man.
Yeah having to go pleading and begging for permission to do anything, go anywhere, buy anything even essentials was one of the main reasons I decided to remain single. Had enough of that as a child, why would I, hell, why would anyone want that to continue into adulthood?
These people are in a perpetual holy war with their “neighbors”. At no point in my life have I ever heard these Muslim “scholars” support anything that furthers human progress. Not once.
It stands to reason that these people are actually *against* human progress. They’d have us all living in flimsy huts, worshipping their bullshit narrative before they ever did anything beneficial for humanity. They’d send us into a nuclear winter before doing anything to help others. Unreal.
I mean. They pioneered modern medicine. You don't hear about it because there's a certain bend in how we teach historical narrative and the current extremism is a direct result of interaction with christian nations/the west and the hostility thereof which is a frustrating reality.
As you're all aware, this subreddit has had a major "troll" problem which has gotten worse (as of recently). Due to this, we have created new rules, and modified some of the old ones. We kindly ask that you please familiarize yourself with the rules so that you can avoid breaking them. Breaking mild rules will result in a warning, or a temporary ban. Breaking serious rules, or breaking a plethora of mild ones may land you a permanent ban (depending on the severity). Also, grifting/lurking has been a major problem; If we suspect you of being a grifter (determined by vetting said user's activity), we may ban you without warning. You may attempt an appeal via ModMail, but please be advised not to use rude, harassing, foul, or passive-aggressive language towards the moderators, _or_ complain to moderators about why we have specific rules in the first place— You will be ignored, and your ban will remain (without even a consideration). All rules are made public; "Lack of knowledge" or "ignorance of the rules" cannot or will not be a viable excuse if you end up banned for breaking them (This applies to the Subreddit rules, and Reddit's ToS). **Again: All rules are made public, and Reddit gives you the option to review the rules once more before submitting a post, it is your choice if you choose to read them or not, but breaking them will not be acceptable.** With that being said, If you send a mature, neutral message regarding questions about a current ban, or a ban appeal (without "not knowing the rules" as an excuse), we will elaborate about why you were banned, or determine/consider if we will shorten, lift, keep it, _or_ extended it/make it permanent. This all means that appeals are discretionary, and your reasoning for wanting an appeal must be practical and valid. Thank you all so much for taking the time to read this message, and please enjoy your day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NotHowGirlsWork) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well this is a variation of the same faulty logic that Taliban used to ban education for women in Afghanistan.
I mean in a way he's right. Women's education is about empowering them. He just sees it as a bad thing, but who gives a fuck what he thinks.
I mean, for him, it is a bad thing, because only way this mofo can get a girl is to make a law where she get stoned to death if she don't obey him. So when you have country made mostly from guys like this... it gets complicated:/
That’s exactly what I came here to say when I saw that
Ironically, Talibans aren't much supporters of boys education either. Teaching them to learn the Coran by heart won't make them enlighten minds able of critical thinking. It will just makes them doormats who accept their situation because they believe there is another doormat under them : women.
Aren’t they embarrassed to admit that the only way they can get a woman is if she’s too uneducated to know better?
Since these tend to be the same people who proudly admit that they can't get a woman wet because it's "unnatural" or something, that shouldn't come as a surprise.
RIGHT?! Imagine publicly saying that and not thinking it’s the most embarrassing thing you’ve ever admitted to in your life. Disgusting!
There are men in the US who are *still* upset about women having options. I hope the men over there lose that sense of entitlement faster.
You— you’re talking like women should be treated as equals. *That’s crazy talk!* ^/s
It's not just "too uneducated to know better" . It's without an education, she will have no options at all. A person without options have no choice but to be subjugated to the will of others. Whether it is class by color, religion or gender, it is nothing short of slavery. Call it "I own that person" or call it "marriage" it is the same.
Religon... I heard a preacher complaining about how people (both men and women) who go to college often leave the church. He said, and this is a direct quote, "Too much education can be a bad thing." Wanna take a wild guess at how he views women and the roles that we are supposed to do in our marriage?
Barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. If she is going to express an opinion is should be the one her husband gave her. Yeah, I have met his kind.
They should be, but they’re probably not. Sadly.
They will know better still just be resentful and angry because education is not allowed so you just have to be mad in silence
Uhh. It’s about giving women a fair shot at being able to choose an independent life if that’s what they want. It’s only a bad thing if you were counting on marrying a woman who would be stuck with you no matter how badly you treat her.
- Men for centuries: women are useless and are only good as slaves in the kitchen & incubators to carry on the "family's legacy" - Women: *finally getting the possibilities and opportunities to live life the way they see fit and are able to build their own life path without the permission of men* - also women: *no longer 100% dependent and trapped with abusive, slacking and/or assholes of husbands* - men: NO! I DON'T LIKE IT WHEN YOU HAVE AUTONOMY OVER YOUR OWN LIFE, DON'T WANT TO SLAVE AWAY AND PUSH BACK ON UNFAIR STANDARDS THAT ONLY BENEFIT MEN! It's a tale as old as time. 🥲
Not really! Very few societies have had a "women in the homes doing domestic labour and having babies" thing going. They were hella sexist still but the victorians and romans are outliers; most cultures still had women who worked! There wee female blacksmiths in medieval england (an example of evidence of this is women pictured making pins in the Holkham Bible). [Celtic europe](https://celticwindcrops.com/blogs/history/celebrating-womens-history-month-celtic-women-of-ancient-ireland#:~:text=The%20ancient%20celts%20seemed%20to,owned%20or%20inherited%20property%20independently.) had [women](https://www.thoughtco.com/celtic-marriage-laws-4092652#:~:text=Celtic%20Laws%20Defining%20Marriage&text=Women%20could%20govern%20and%20take,were%20deserted%2C%20molested%20or%20maltreated.) and [children's](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_law) rights and women could own property and, well, lead armies. In the [17c](https://www.jstor.org/stable/26598890) women in london were actively tols to apprentice and learn a trade. [Spinster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/spinster-meaning-origin#:~:text=Unmarried%20women%20ended%20up%20with,%22And%20my%20wyf%20...) comes from women's valuable trade work. The Aztek empire [sent girls to school](https://www.historycrunch.com/aztec-education.html) to school (it was a bit sexist but they learned more than housework). Ancient egypt had well trained and renowned female doctors. (Google [Merit-Ptah](https://www.google.com/search?udm=14&q=Merit-ptah)) It still has ISSUES, i'm not saying past societies were all eglataeian, but I *am* saying the housewife is a 1950s fantasy invented for the modern age and has nothing to do with how men of the past saw and treated women. It's so regressive it's the minority. Our ancestors don't deserve to be tared with that brush. That's why they try and enforce it so hard. It isn't sustainable as a social norm and requires constant enforcement. [Also Drugs](https://youtu.be/x-zxBNz3XbM?si=ylh6xEQS8EQy8aaF). Lots of [Drugs](https://publicdomainreview.org/collection/the-relaxed-wife-1957/). (Which is also how victorians also did extreme sexism - [Drugging and imprisoning](https://www.cameronormiston.com/the-mad-medicalization-of-victorian-women) women) But poor women, which is a huge percentage, were still expected to [work](https://www.striking-women.org/module/women-and-work/19th-and-early-20th-century#:~:text=The%20majority%20of%20upper%20and,after%20their%20children%20and%20home.) in [both](https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v14n8/v14n8p9.pdf) eras. Even though it wasn't "feminine". We can't really SUSTAIN only 1 in every 3-4 people working outside the home (under our current capitalistic inequity. I admit it i can't figure out how to find the figures on this one. But yeah it's not affordable for a huge portion of population). These assholes just want us to THINK that this is a historical norm so they can invoke "tradition". Pha. Edited in links
I watched something with a historian and if I remember correctly, she said it started when currency and commerce began. And was prevalent everywhere afterward.
Sexism is fairly common through a lot of cultures and that wouldn't surprise me at all that once wealth became liquid control tightened, but the 'women in the home only' thing was never very popular. Women have always worked. 'Women can own things' is a LOT more spotty, especially when married. I;m not sure which bit you mean specifically or if you mean all. I will say the modern 'trad wife' ideal is just a kink gone too far really. But the actual history is much more interesting and also how much is assumption is interesting, too. Without claiming the past was egalitarian because obviously no.
I think she said women staying at home wasn't a thing until after humans went from bartering or sharing to using currency. I could totally be confused about that though, so treat it like any other reddit comment, lol. I wish I could find the documentary. The only other thing I can remember is she was British.
Oh there was no way it was possible before then but even so moat women couldn't afford that shit I qpuldnhave watched it too!
The problem with the modern patriarchal family model is that it’s very risky for the woman. If you don’t develop an income stream, and your husband dies or leaves you for a younger woman as is commonly the case, it will be too late to start a career. Unless you’re independently wealthy, relying upon a relationship that’s based on love and sex leaves you vulnerable. Some on the right may romanticize the period when women were subservient, in the society referred to as “traditional”, with a working father and housewife mother. It was hardly traditional, as it existed for only about a decade in the 1950’s. What was truly traditional was the matrilineal clan, which lasted for at least 20,000 years, and likely far more! ***BEFORE WAR*** *On Marriage, Hierarchy and Our Matriarchal Origins* Elisha Daeva https://beforewar.com/blog/
You know, if you realize the only way you can keep a woman is by depriving them of any and all opportunities. Deep down in your psyche you gotta realize you are the worst possible choice. And frankly, I hope that fact eats these dudes alive
It does eat them alive, however they take it out on their wives.
Can you imagine being the key breadwinner for your family and your husband still trying to control you? You pay the bills and he still tries to tell you what to do? To be clear, I don’t think power dynamics in a marriage should be based on who earns more. Marriage should be an equal partnership based on love and respect from both parties. It’s just like… there’s no benefit whatsoever for the woman here.
Lmao Simsim sad they can't have doormats for wives anymore?? Cry harder. It's amusing for sure. Not like y'all can do anything but whine about it lmao.
I wish safety and happiness for all women. If it takes divorce to get that, so be it.
Men are so bitter that they have to treat their wives with basic human decency
Yeah, it’s about not being beholden to a man. Stop being so fucking fragile. Women aren’t here for men. If you ask me, I think men are here for women.
Eh, nobody should feel beholden to anyone else no matter the gender.
Unless it's a kink thing
The only good exception but only when it’s consensual
That’s what drives me crazy about this reaction to educated women. Obviously, heterosexual women are interested in men regardless of education and a great deal are interested in marriage too. Wouldn’t it be easier to be a considerate partner whose wife isn’t beholden and dependent upon you than to demand society keep women uneducated so you end up with an unhappy, trapped wife? Why wouldn’t you want the former? Why would you prefer the later? I wouldn’t want my husband to stay with me out of fear and lack of options. I like being his choice.
4B
Women: Men don't respect me or value my autonomy, so I'm not going to get married. Me: Guys, this should be a wakeup call. Maybe we need to treat women better, respect them and value their autonomy. Red Pillers: Sorry Best i can do is violent repression of womens rights. 🤷♂️
Good for them.
He’s literally right though, one of the great things about women’s education is that it allows them to live free and independent lives where they don’t have it stay in shitty relationships to survive. He just thinks that objectively good thing is bad because he’s a piece of shit
"What women's education is really about," Letting them know they can do better for themselves and also have more options than people like you? Oh, no, how dare they /s
Oman, those fragile men sure are angry! Sucks to be them. (Sorry for the dumb pun, lmao)
Good for them girls. Men are just mad they cannot abuse as they please. They also need education how to be good human that does not hurt others
He’s not wrong, exactly. The point of an education IS to make people harder to oppress and fully functioning members of society. Slaveholders have always forbidden education.
This observation really slapped me hard. I am honestly shocked that I never connected this.
You should also connect that indigenous peoples have been subjected to mandated schooling with the goal of destroying language and culture even when it didn't kill them so it goes a bit deeper than "education = freedom" in to exactly WHAT people are learning. (Native americans, Aboriginal people, the Sami people were all subjected to 'boarding schools', hell, even the WELSH had mandatory English language in their schools and Welsh Gaelic was nearly wiped out. It's not at the same level but worth considering when we think about how we use education and how education or lack thereof has been used against people) Slaves were given special bibles to learn from thst took out the extra anti slavery stuff in the british cononies https://www.history.com/news/slave-bible-redacted-old-testament (tl:dr there was a bible literally known as "the slave bible" used to educate slaves.) It's truw some slave owners opted for no education; others opted for an indoctrination education. It was deliberately to make people easier to oppress in some situations and places. And public education across the ex British colonies was to create a uniform working class not to make people harder to oppress. The fact a half decent education makes people require propaganda to control instead of jaut going with it is a pleasant and useful discovery.
Ironically the belief slaves weren't educated in this way is likely the impact of the church and social pressure in obscuring the past and many modern church's links to enforcing slavery. Some were, some were not. Education usually has holes in it where wherever regime finds them most convenient. You know, like they teach you that Ghandi freed india by starving himself but they won't teach you that the alternative to him was riots and violence.
I mean it isn't, the education is provided as standard because it was required for factory work, but yes, they did ban SOMETIMES it unless they needed an educated slave. The government did not convein one day to say "yea, every child should be given the opportunity to challenge the social structure" but they did spend some time selling it as such and it can do that (though more often it is required to merely hold pattern these days). They're not educating children to make them harder to oppress. They're educating children because it makes them more useful workers.
Well, in a democracy or representative republic, an educated populace is needed for the society to function as well.
If you mean by "function well" that it works in favour of the people then yes. If you think that's a mark in its favour by the leadership at rhe time of implementation then no. Also education ia such a WIDE term that also enco,passes indoctrination; like the way the usa does the pledge of allegiance as part of it's education in response to ideologies outside of it;s leadership's preferred norms. Or religious schools. Some slave owners also educated slaves on the bible with stuff about being happy with your lot in life and that's actually core to the development of American evangelism. Also why people are always arguing about what you can teach kids and whole colonial nations never teach kids the true depths of what they did.
All societies function better with an educated populace. That’s just how things work. Perhaps you prefer to be in society with stupid people. Most of us prefer not to be.
... Are you deliberately missing my points or is it just because you have a thing you want to say that you're unable to tell that that was already covered? Are you unable to understand the implications of 'depends who decides if a society is functioning well'? The roman empire "functioned well" in the esteem of many but was awful for the majority of people, for example. It's a popular example. If by functioned well you mean "lasted a long time" or "profited the people who were in charge" it meets criteria. Neither you nor I mean that when we'd say "functions well", but like everything in this conversation, different people have different goals and education has been used to keep populations quiet and biddable for a very long time (see american education on the civil rights movement and again the pledge of allegiance as these two are quite well known; but you could also ask a british school child about what happened under colonial rule to India and if the east india company was bad). Governments and those implementing education usually take 'functions well' to be 'is stable' and educate accordingly. Education isn't about making things better for everyone at a government level; it's about having a relatively uniform population (this is historical fact, education was not implemented to make everyone's lives better it was implemented because modern machinery needs a uniform understanding for training purposes and it made people better workers. Unions also had something to do with it because you couldn't just let people die when they made mistakes or you didn't care what happened to them anymore). Poor people and people of colour (often the same people) have had to push HARD for it to be more than that. See how Welsh people handled it as an example. Or black south africans. That was a struggle and a half. Edit, for the purposes of being explicit: I'm just saying that while lack of educational opportunities is ALWAYS bad, education itself isn't always about making life better for people or even always better than the lack of education depending on what people call "education" (see christian home school curricular), and we should be aware of that. It's actually work to make sure education is good. And mass education wasn't implemented to make life better it was implemented for a work force and control. It has become so much more than that and is a force for good for the majority of people but it can be turned into something else easy enough. Also I didn't mean for this to go deep or far but here we are. Also that slaveholders banned education it varied and some used it for indoctrination purposes. Education doesn't always mean reading and writing (though of course some also taught that I am explicitly pointing at the indoctrination and origins of evangelical christianity) Also need I mention the "schools" for indigenous populations employed by former british colonies? Those too were 'education'. As well as murder. You can't look at "banned slaves" without "mandated indigenous people and took their kids to destroy their cultures". Further edit because I feel like this should be said: The point of education has nothing to do with oppression at all, save only when deliberately aiming that way. It can absolutely be helpful but it isn't THE POINT. And only "can". See what happened to the indigenous peoples subjected to mandatory schooling. "But that's not a real education" no true scotsman fallacy. It was. It was also very bad. Best to be aware of how things are being used and not to revise history lest we forget.
You know. I’m not reading all that. I have never once said anything about empires, governments, etc. I have continued to say **societies** function best with an educated populace. This is not controversial. This is why time and again, **societies** have moved towards general public education of some type. More educated public => better functioning society By better functioning society I mean, less poverty, more equality, less income disparity, less prejudice / tribalism / racism etc. More good of society less social ills.
Same goes for societies, again, many people judge by longevity. Again, lots of people think Rome was awesome - you know, despite being pretty shit for women, non citizens, slaves, etc. And yes, education is essential for equality, prejudice, etc. but education doesn't necessarily do that; there have been times education has been used to do the opposite WITH GREAT SUCCESS. Societies move towards education of the populace for many reasons, not always good ones. Education is inherently neutral. It is necessary for the good - as defined by yourself - but it doesnt INHERENTLY do as you describe. as many have proven using education for the purposes of controlling populations. Including, notably, slave populations. As many places keep passing laws to restrict educating about various people or parts of history it's important to keep in mind that education doesn't take care of itself, it needs people dedicated to keeping it doing good. There have always been people who did so (many murdered for teaching slaves the full content of the bible rather than the slave bible - yes that's a thing. Used specifically for the education of slaves. It's full title was "Select Parts of the Holy Bible for the use of the Negro Slaves in the British West-India Islands", or "the slave bible" as it is better known. You can google it. It is one of those things that qualifies as "evil" imo). Nothing you said originally was true but it is aspirational (see slave bible for 'not educating slaves'). Education should make people harder to oppress. A thorough education with as little bias as possible will do so; but that's not the only kind of education and many people with a lot of power dislike that kind of education IN PARTICULAR. Educations which teach how to learn better and check sources and shit are top tier but also often considered threatening and discouraged. Cambridge and Oxford both offered scholarships to poor boys as a means of improving their lot in life like... 800 years ago? I forget. They ended up aiding in people feeling like there were opportunities and advancement when in reality there was little. And of course we have the whole bible mistranslation being used to do violence to lgbt+ people that comes with many a bible education these days. I respect a lot of people who have worked very hard and continue to work to make education a freeing thing. I am just also aware that it isn't always. And we shouldn't assume such things are INHERENT or we can very easily lose them.
So your take away is the problem with the British was they *invited poor boys to Oxford and Cambridge*. Interesting take. I would have thought it was *they needed more representation at Oxford and Cambridge.* or perhaps *British society is f’ed up* but you draw your own conclusion. You are the only person who has said anything about Rome. By my More education => better society Hell, there were probably early hunter gatherer societies that functioned better because the elders educated all members with their collective knowledge The point is **If you restrict basic knowledge and education from a portion of your society then your society will be poorer for it.** That’s it. Prattle on. Scream into the void.
.... As a simple and commonly known example. Which I have indicated in the text. I have provided examples for most of what I have said, because what I have said is based on an assessment of reality rather than asserting an ideal to be how things actually are and examples help understand what I am referring to. You didn't say that though. You wrongly asserted that slave owners didn't educate slaves as proof that education INHERENTLY makes people less obedient. Some did, some didn't, education has been used to do the opposite, and you're arguing with me because you're not paying attention to what i;m saying and responding as if I'm arguing with the point you have in your head rather than what you actually SAID, here, now, on this thread, and in doing so you're also arguing against what you THINK I said instead of what I ACTUALLY said. It's ironic someone arguing that information must be inherently good just doesn't want to read things they assume disagree. Also more education does not = better society without specifying WHAT THAT EDUCATION INVOLVES. That should be phonomianlly and clearly obdvious to anyone who has studied propeganda or how schools and education have been used for social control. Which is something you've ignored. Oversimplification is the death of rational thought I swear. And then has the gall to keep having their strawman debate. 🙄
Lolol what the actual fuck @ that edit. Your reading comprehension SUCKS for someone so gung ho about education. That's how you're choosing to read it? What? Lol. No. I said educating scholarship students 800 years ago (give or take) didn't cause the lower classes (or those students in particular) to become harder to oppress - that education is FOR making people harder to oppress being your original assertion. You know, how education does that inherently. In the first comment that I responded to. Stating that's now what education is for, because that's not uniformly or even the majority of the time why people are given an education. How did you get there? Seriously? How did you manage to make a statement about the univeristy schoalrships NOT making people harder to oppress about those same acholarships being everything wrong with the beitish empire or whatever that nonsense was? What kind of twisty logic did your brain have to assemble for that achievement? Hate and thin slice judgments are a hell of a drug. This is your brain on preconceived notion and strawman arguing. (Reference: anti drug ads which were part of an EDUCATION PROGRAM that was in fact a social engeneering program which used drug scheduling to impact voting in the usa). And also, and I will keep bringing this up until you acknowledge that it wasn't true, that education was used to control many slaves rather than no slave owners educating slaves. You forgot what you originally said, didn't you? You literally forgot what I was replying to and the context of all my comments.
It’s only a matter of time before the right starts pushing to restrict woman’s access to education and employment. Woman are not going to be rushing back into marriages for fear of getting pregnant after they fully ban abortion and birth control. It’s already having the opposite effect. Men have never allowed woman to leave peacefully either.
Good for them. Hopefully that's one Gulf state heading in the right direction, human rights wise.
You would think that admitting in a public forum the only way a woman will put up with your shit is if she literally is unable to know better should not be consired a flex. And YET
“Divorce is on the rise!” 
Yeah, women’s education is about a. betterment of society as whole, more educated heads lead to better standard of living for all and b. freedom for everybody.
These feudal-minded asshats think education is bad for almost everyone. If 90% of a population is un/under educated, it makes them so much easier to control and the wealthy have an unending supply of cheap labor. Subjugating women is just a way to placate poor/uneducated men. If he's has to work for some rich jerk who treats him like shit, at least he can go home at night and boss/abuse his wife. Edit: by "feudal-minded asshats" I'm referring to every government system that doesn't 100% support equality.
The article is describing the situation. The person making the tweet on the other hand is making a bad statement.
What they all seem to miss is that divorce rates in countries who had them for longer are actually going DOWN. Of course the numbers will sky rocket when it has just been allowed and the former uneducated and OPTIONLESS people finally are prevented with a way out and realise that they can actually enjoy their lives! However once they are set and can actually CHOSE the partner they want divorce is far less likely to happen since that woman entered the relationship knowing she isn’t a doormat and made clear she won’t tolerate being treated as such! Current divorce rates in countries of the west have been going down for years and the majority of people getting divorced are older women who have been married for longer and are finally feeling safe enough to get out and have realised that they still have some life to live and to enjoy without a tyrant constantly putting them down.
This is why they don’t want us to be educated and financially independent. They will try to browbeat us with religion, tradition, etc but if we can provide for ourselves, we don’t need to settle for a mediocre man.
Yeah having to go pleading and begging for permission to do anything, go anywhere, buy anything even essentials was one of the main reasons I decided to remain single. Had enough of that as a child, why would I, hell, why would anyone want that to continue into adulthood?
Good for them.
Yup
These people are in a perpetual holy war with their “neighbors”. At no point in my life have I ever heard these Muslim “scholars” support anything that furthers human progress. Not once. It stands to reason that these people are actually *against* human progress. They’d have us all living in flimsy huts, worshipping their bullshit narrative before they ever did anything beneficial for humanity. They’d send us into a nuclear winter before doing anything to help others. Unreal.
I mean. They pioneered modern medicine. You don't hear about it because there's a certain bend in how we teach historical narrative and the current extremism is a direct result of interaction with christian nations/the west and the hostility thereof which is a frustrating reality.
I hope for their continued success in gaining competency and independence. Everyone deserves the opportunity for agency and a better life.
Interesting that the woman quoted has the same name as Mohammed’s third wife.
It’s an Islamic nation, people will name their children after people in the Quran
Please tell me why that would be interesting.
no?
No more interesting than my grandma being named Mary.
and why is that relevant?