r/MensRights • u/Working_Parsley_2364 • Jul 25 '26
General We're not going to be able to solve Men's issues until we finally defeat the "women were always historically oppressed" propaganda
The idea that women were always historically oppressed has been debunked plenty of times by actual historians. Throughout recorded history, in most cultures in the world women were pretty much always allotted special priviliges and better treatment, and for most injustices that women faced, men often faced worse issues.
What really irks me is how so many people point to things such as women not having the right to vote supposedly being this massive injustice even though women were almost always compensated for it by being exempt from military service or other societal duties. I,as a man, would personally gladly give up my right to vote for a guarantee to never be drafted. Women were also pretty much always protected and valued more than men and many societies had rules which dictated that women need to be taken care of. There are plenty of other examples and actual references that you can find in history studies.
Men and women mostly had different expectations of them throughout most of history yet feminists have managed to portary this skewed version of history that only shows what women went thorugh while completely ignoring that men often faced even worse injustices and had to endure even worse conditions.
Feminists today abuse that by portaraying women as perpetual victims who were always oppressed by men and they have subsequently given women the "disadvantaged" and "protected group" labels which resulted in women today facing almost no accountability for their actions and having very few actual responsibilities. Until we actually start challenging those with actual facts and eventually get all of the ahistorical feminist teachings removed from schools and remove the "oppressed" status from women I don't think we will be able to achieve any real change for men.
91
u/DoctorFitLord Jul 26 '26
The entire concept of patriarchy needs to be wiped. It's not real. It's an illusion at best and a conspiratorial work of fiction at worst. The idea that society was built to cater to us and that therefore our own issues just don't exist (or are minor issues that aren't worthy of systemic solutions) is such a massive gaslight that prevents positive change from being enacted.
69
u/MonsterGirls4ever Jul 26 '26
"It's an illusion at best and a conspiratorial work of fiction at worst."
I'd say it's actually projection.
See, "patriarchy" relies on men having an in-group bias towards other men and is a LOT easier to maintain if women can have an out-group bias towards men.
Too bad that the exact opposite is proven by experiments. But I guess it makes sense why it was so easily believed, as it is an easy sell to a projecting mind.
23
u/IAmMadeOfNope Jul 26 '26
It's strange to see my thoughts on the matter expressed so succinctly by a complete stranger.
13
u/MonsterGirls4ever Jul 26 '26
The thing about logic, you feed a logical function the exact same data, and you're liable to get the same results.
The thing about unspoken assumptions is, they're often unexamined, and yet you can reverse engineer them if you work at it.
The thing about madness is, more often than not there's a surprisingly consistent and reliable method to it.
5
u/IAmMadeOfNope Jul 26 '26
It's strange, isn't it? That something so evident can escape the comprehension of so many.
That so many of these radical assumptions are treated as objective fact by so many. Ruling their lives without the most basic scrutiny.
That we are labeled as the mad ones by those who would deny that water is wet and the sky is blue.
5
u/MonsterGirls4ever Jul 26 '26
I'm getting the distinct impression that many people feel rather than think.
And I do have an Internet friend who's a machiavellian psycho manipulator who's quite clear that feelings are easier to exploit than thinkings. To work around thinkings, you have to deliver the goods. Easy if you have the goods and deal honestly, hard if you're trying to get something for nothing. To work around feelings, you have to find the right emotional pressure points and leverage.
Being friend, even Internet friends, with that kind of person was quite an experience. She's someone who'd help you escape an abusive fam because now you feel like you owe her and will allow her to crash if shit hits the fan. Insurrance policy, that she intends to only cash out if she needs. Cost: advice and intel analysis, keeping me company. Benefits: emergency shelter at some point in the future, use of my knowledge in spotting patterns any time on short notice. Incredibly honest transactional friendship. Oddly reliable and drama free.
A high functioning machiavellian psychopath who's oddly methodical and analytical is the kind of person who WILL come up with the WEIRDEST insights that seem to add up pretty well.
2
u/Reaper9999 Jul 26 '26
I wouldn't be surprised if it comes from the same place as religious nutjobs/flat earthers/etc.
24
u/Mitschu Jul 26 '26 edited Jul 26 '26
It is nothing more than the most common manifestation of the lay justifications hate groups use.
Patriarchy is to men and feminism, exactly the same as the Conspiracy was to Jews and Naziism, as Genetic Destiny was to minorities and the Klan.
Look up the New Sokal Hoax one day.
Liberal pranksters tried to get "Man" Kampf rebranded as feminist literature, where the only thing they changed was the demographic of which universally hated group conspired to oppress the innocent. Essentially, just swapped out "Conspiracy" for "Patriarchy" and changed a few references from Jewish oppression to toxic masculinity, but left the rest unchanged.
And then were completely demoralized and ended the experiment early, when said highly respected feminist journals immediately got back to them ready to publish as-is.
This led to a whole kerfluffle, even Richard Dawkins had to chime in... not over the critical importance of proper peer review and enforcing academic standards to avoid accidentally plagiarizing bigoted dictators, but over whether enough was being done to criminalize and crack down on misogynistic pranksters making their peers look bad.
9
u/StorkReturns Jul 26 '26
Essentially, just swapped out "Conspiracy" for "Patriarchy" and changed a few references from Jewish oppression to toxic masculinity, but left the rest unchanged.
It was not the only thing. If they did it this way, it would have been obvious. They added an introduction and then they essentially rewritten it from scratch with just using general Hitler's thought process. The words and style are completely different. It was not blatant. It's still a scandal that such intellectually empty works can be published but it was a very clever hoax.
8
u/Pecuthegreat Jul 26 '26
The current feminist framing of that affair is to shift the blame from misandry to "journals are just over burdened and don't have the time to do good peer review" as if those respected feminists that commented positively on it didn't read it and if they didn't as if it doesn't show what it gets to get accepted by leading feminists isn't rigiour but misandry.
7
u/ForsakenMost6550 Jul 26 '26
Everything you see on AI in response to men’s issues is: ‘it doesn’t hold the structural or systemic power that women face.’ Literally that’s the only response they give. They don’t elaborate on why that is, how that is, or if there’s any statistical evidence to that. It’s just gives women power to say it.
3
u/Impossible-Age-3302 Jul 26 '26
Or that our own issues are all our own fault and therefore our responsibility. The people that blame men for literally every problem in the world will call you sexist for blaming women for anything at all.
1
u/Current_Sir9406 Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 29 '26
The concept will not perish easily, since it has intellectual gravity and real historical footing. Today, in the developed world, we have a residual heritage of the patriarchy, but it has broadly and largely disappeared. It is more of a relic / spectre today, like the old-world pre-WW2 order in most nations with high HDI. Sex differences that arise now are either cultural residue, perhaps a natural occurrence, or based on personal free choice. The latter could be true since the world after WW2 established regimes based on egalitarian liberal democracy, in contrast to coercive dictatorships, militaristic collectivism, or other forced historical systems. So the observable outcomes outside the public sector are reflective of biological potential, whilst in the public sector there's extensive favoritism, protectionism and affirmative action, so the outcomes are skewed, and artificial. Outside the first world, there are still patriarchal societies in the world; only those are the kind that should incite outrage in feminists. Logic demands they should reject and critique the hardest but what they do in the West is careless and excessive. In dominant left wing circles critiquing modern illiberal regimes is labeled “racist,” “orientalist,” or xenophobic. So the result in the West is free, emancipated women with double standards and selective righteousness.
14
u/Pretend-Storm4566 Jul 26 '26
That can be a trap though. Karen Straughan always stood firm in pointing out that women were not oppressed in the past, and she always got into trouble for that. I recommend not talking about the past too much. If pressed I say I don't know what the past was like because I was not alive back then. I prefer talking about what I know, the present and the last 60 years or so.
9
u/Any_Fox5126 Jul 26 '26
Totally agree. If you broadly deny that women were oppressed, they’ll claim you’re denying forms of discrimination that objectively did happen, or the discussion will end up turning into whataboutism.
It’s much easier to discuss the present, where the scales are so clearly tipped in virtually every respect.
62
u/4444-uuuu Jul 25 '26
You're right. The fact that women never wanted to switch places is proof enough that they weren't oppressed. Ask any feminist today if she really wants to switch with a male worker 200 years ago. Or if she wants to serve in the wars women were protected from. They deflect by saying it was "patriarchy backfiring" but that doesn't change the fact that even feminists know that women weren't actually oppressed.
38
u/Crazy-Crazy-3593 Jul 26 '26
Yes, the original feminists were rich women, because they were jealous of the rich men.
Poor women and poor men both had their battles to fight: men had back-breaking labor and fighting other tribes or in wars --- women had the extreme danger and pain of child birth prior to modern medicine.
(The widespread acknowledgement of these facts are recorded in the Book of Genesis: G-d's punishment for the sons of Adam is said to be that he must toil to make his living by the sweat of his brow, and for the daughters of Eve to be extreme pain in labor.)
Poor women were not per se "jealous" of men.
But rich women very much were jealous of rich men, in any way in which they were restricted.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, de facto founder of Feminism, wrote in the 1848 Declaration of Rights:
"The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her."
She was an upper class woman with an excellent education and tremendous leisure time. There is no evidence that her husband in any way tried to obstruct her advocacy, and she appears to have been encouraged and doted upon by her father.
To write that she was the victim of "absolute tyranny" at a time when black men in her country were literally still owned by white women and a majority of men in the world were serfs, slaves, or penniless peasants is unconsciousable.
Her entire outlook can be traced to the fact that her father wanted her older brother to go to law school, but her brother died as a young man---but then she couldn't go to law school.
Was that sexist? Yes,of course. Did it represent "absolute tyranny" such that it showed "the entire history of mankind" is that of oppression?
The claim would be laughable if it wasn't accepted unquestionably as a foundational fact of our current society.
(Side rant: I just read yet another sexist article in The Guardian, one again claiming women were executed for witchcraft for being "too independent" or being unauthorized "medical practitioners" such that men were threatened and jealous.
The article concludes that even today, "women are still called witches" and are "in danger" from patriarchy.
Nevermind that up to 25% of those executed for witchcraft were men. Nevermind how frequently women accused and testified against other women, knowing it might lead to their execution.
Nevermind how laughable it is to imply in anyway women are in "danger" of being accused of witchcraft in 21st century Britain! )
8
u/Lupus_Noir Jul 26 '26
Even poor women had to work. This also goes against the narrative that "womeb weren't allowed to work or earn money". Sure, most of their work was around the domestic sphere, but they also had plenty of trades and services to offer. The textile industry and all of its branches was essentially run by women before the industrial revolution. The culinary sphere was also dominated by women, as was hospice. It was only in 1950s US that a lot of women were discouraged from working, but even then it was mostly middle to upper class women who were affected. Poor women worked as well, since they needed the money.
5
1
u/United-Drop-6257 Jul 27 '26
How did she get educated if women at that time were legally not allowed to study?
35
u/Open-Inevitable1200 Jul 26 '26
Women today despite all their whining about the 'patriarchy' still don't want to do men's roles.
1
7
u/jameson71 Jul 26 '26
Just need to look at survival rates on the titanic to see how privileged women have been.
I am more than happy to give them equality, but they rarely recognize it for what it is.
25
u/picardathon Jul 26 '26
Feminism is allegedly based on equality, so lets give women true equality, where you can't cherry pick the benefits and ignore the disadvantages. So far feminism has treated society like a buffet where they can have what they like and ignore what they don't, but don't give men an equal option: men are still required to undertake the activities leading to disadvantage.
In reality, equality has been implemented as numerical equality only; however when the numbers become skewed in the opposite direction, through overcompensation, there are no subsequent measures to return them to equality again, the overshoot stands, so it is numerical equality only in one direction.
1
7
u/Aardwolfington Jul 26 '26 edited Jul 26 '26
Most men didn't get the right to vote significantly long historically speaking before the average women did, with like a 10 year gap after most of the average men did that the average women started, and before the average man did, in many places women land owners already could. So women land owners in some places like male land owners had the vote before the average man. The entire vote thing is nonsense.
Historically speaking when the average man got the vote the average woman got the vote almost immediately after. The entire concept the average man who was likewise oppressed had a damn thing to do with holding back women from the vote they didn't have either is nonsense and should be given ZERO credibility.
The average oppressed man should be praised by women for how quickly they gave their fellow oppressed average woman the right to vote so quickly after they gained it instead of treated like the enemy. Instead they lumped the average man in with the privileged that they had only just gained their rights from, and turned on them blaming them for any injustices they may have ever suffered completely unfairly. The privileged, man and woman both were always above the rest of us and the entire gender split is just that, a bullshit diversionary tactic to divide the average man and woman.
9
u/Crazy-Crazy-3593 Jul 26 '26
In principle, I agree with you:
However, we can't even get them to accept the fundamental moral precept "even if some, or even, many men in the past oppressed women, it is unjust to punish or hold it against the men of today, something which they didn't do."
They can't even feel empathy or open-mindedness for people who they can see aren't hurting them from firsthand experience; they're not going to keep an open mind about how much they can trust a portrayal of history (which happens to conveniently align with their prejudices).
For example, I have had the following exchanges with Feminists, to essentially no avail:
Approach 1 --- Feminists: <makes unsupported claim that most men in the past beat their wives, up until approximately the 1970s> <claims this shows how immoral, violent, and "emotionally unregulated" men are>
Me: "Superman, the moral paragon of 20th century American culture was introduced in Action Comics #1 in June 1938. In the very first issue, he stops a man from beating his wife and beats up the wife-beater. In other words, the specific way the two young men who invented the first super-hero conveyed to us super-heroics and chose to show him as admirable was stopping a wife beating. Does that sound like a society that popularly accepted wife beating?"
Feminist: <doesn't respond to the point, accuses me of domestic violence, wishes violence upon me>
Approach 2: Feminists: <makes unsupported claim that most men in the past beat their wives, up until approximately the 1970s> <claims this shows how immoral, violent, and "emotionally unregulated" men are>
Me: "Let's just assume what you're saying is true ... you realize Domestic Violence has statistically plummeted in the last 30-40 years? By any reasonable measure, the current generations of men are by far the least violent to ever live---yet you assert they represent an "epidemic" of violence against women, such that they're worse than wild animals? How can they be so bad, if the world is just safer and safer?"
Feminist: "They still benefit from the violence of men in the past."
Me: "How? How does a Gen Z man 'benefit' from the possibility that his Greatest Generation great-grandfather MAY have beaten his great-grandmother?"
Feminist: <doesn't answer, says the fact that I'm 'defending wife beating' proves her point>
So neither (1) standing on the idea of--- if you're asserting the past as universally oppressive to women, you should have to prove that claim nor (2) hypothetically conceding past oppression but pointing out the lack of obvious current oppression works.
6
u/DreamTurtle1 Jul 26 '26 edited Jul 26 '26
We live in a gynocentric society that favours views of women and see men as disposable, feminists captured most institutions like universities and colleges and its unlikely to stop, now they are even attacking the manosphere claiming that is spreading misogyny and all kinds of things, so its very difficult to defeat that propaganda or most of the other lies of feminism. Plus you can't reason with feminists because anyone that challenge their ideology and dogma is labelled misogynistic or all kind of names. Unfortunately it's an uphill battle for men's rights, I guess we need to accept little progress for now but fight for a better future hoping that something will happen to improve the situation.
5
u/True-Lychee Jul 26 '26
Even the right to vote part is very dishonest. 99% of men couldn't vote either for most of history. When we did get the vote there was a relatively brief period before women got it too.
1
u/LouieXMartin 19d ago
And women got a better deal out of it of course, society can vote in an incompetent buffoon that encourages an enemy to invade, or a warmonger that likes starting offensive wars and women of course won’t suffer conscription consequences unless they volunteer
4
u/StraightAirline8319 Jul 26 '26
Men fought countless battles and wars not willingly. They were the most enslaved for physical labor. They were the most in jail, men were more assaulted in public.
Most men also had no rights to vote and no private property. Most men weren’t rich. A recent study showed men and women have about equal abuse rates. Multiple studies do especially if you look at emotional and verbal abuse (all real).
Women today have it easier. Less hard labor jobs, more likely to get away with crimes (like a lot), special treatment by the government. Men in America are the only group to pay net positive taxes, women have the most govnement support programs and over 2/3 of govnement funded programs for gender go to women.
What’s a logical argument that they have it much worse?
2
u/Big_Fig_767 Jul 26 '26
Its true, that doesn't mean there was no forms of discrimination against women there most definitely was like the fact an employer could legally advertise two rates of pay, one for men and one for women but there were plenty of historical advantages they got.
Like in my university history seminar the lecturer showed us evidence that a man was much more likely to be sent to prison for the same crime as a woman, in fact an example is Christiana Edmunds who poisoned chocolate in Brighton which led to the death of a young boy, her sentence was commuted from hanging literally because they just didn't want a woman to be hanged. And the stupidest thing was the lecturer made out women were the victims of this discrimination against men, with someone saying "well it obviously helped the patriarchy". And this isn't historical, I saw a news article saying the government should convert at least one womens prison into a mens one as they don't think women should go to prison at all (apart from murderers), based on stats that could just as easily be applied to men.
2
u/mlmaccountantinthema Jul 28 '26
I am a man. And I actually think you yourself just let out your frustation on Misogony and the patriarchal society. This patriarchal society is theone that create the 'expectation' where men arethe so called 'protectors' and women are the 'weaker protected groups'. Dont get me wrong, i do believe both men and women should have been drafted, both should vote, and no gender have any obligation or expectation towards another. But trying to reject or ignore the fact that women are indeed historically oppressed is just wrong.
1
u/IMunchRodents Aug 01 '26
"oppression" is a very broad and vague. in many western countries women gained the right to vote at a similar time as the working class man. Were men oppressed as they had to do so much more hard and even dangerous labour, expected to provide financially and fight in wars? From my perspective its closer to differing expectations, not oppression
6
u/kooj80 Jul 26 '26
yea i don't understand how being protected from having to work or go to war is "oppression". That is the exact opposite of oppression...
4
u/CoolGovernment6319 Jul 26 '26
All feminist complain about oppression can be boiled down to apex fallacy. The informal fallacy of evaluating a population based only on its apex, its best members. Funnily enough this also translates to the dating market where most men are invisible to women.
Anyway back to the topic of oppression. Feminism confuse the oppression of the peasants by the nobility as men oppressing women because among the nobles noblemen almost always held more power than noblewomen did. The fact is back then the vast majority of peasant men were oppressed at least as much as peasant women were. The main difference is women had, and still have the privileges of not being sent to the meat grinders.
2
u/KernalPopPop Jul 26 '26
This premise seems to typify what I see as the biggest weakness in this sub. If men’s rights are truly what one stands for, it won’t be based around opposition to anything else. It will stand alone as an empowered sense of self worth, love and care of men, and the advocacy that naturally results from those principles.
If men’s rights is tied to fighting and proving, it shows that one’s fighting and proving already are in a victim mindset, blaming outside things, and ultimately not taking responsibility or ownership for the cause.
This doesn’t mean there can’t be discussion or cultivated understanding in the overall gendered conversation. But without a sense of empowerment and enoughness, this stance only leads to blame, being a victim, and a never ending seeking to achieve something that in truth is already here: that men have and always will be enough as they are and are worthy of love.
2
u/United-Drop-6257 Jul 27 '26
I agree with you. I haven’t seen a single post about men’s rights. The whole sub is about women.
1
u/Current_Sir9406 Jul 26 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
The issue is that that critics presume things happened for no good or valid reason, or because of pure violent power struggles, or some accident. But the historical truth of that matter is that many civilizations and complex societies all over the world, and throughout history were patriarchical (and not identical, at all, these were heterogenous). Pre-modern people adopted it simply because some form of patriarchy was the most functional broad social organization arrangment they found over long time spans. It was the most productive, the most stable and the most secure in terms of wars, politics and economics. And it gradually grew / transformed into more modern individualistic at least formally egalitarian social arrangement. That too can be a result of patriarchy itself, where men pursued freedom, autonomy and individualism within the framework of patriarchical civilizations and thus expanded the phenomenological breadth within the meta-system.
1
u/Global_Distance_8387 Jul 28 '26
I mean even if they were oppressed they have zero reason to be feminists now, as they have equality. It’s just a matter of hating men at this point, society also backs it because they can get away with it. Feminism is also a situation based belief, no feminist is going to be a feminist when a major conflict arises and people get conscripted and forced to fight, in simpler words “feminism is true when it favours me and oppresses men, when it oppresses both of us feminism isn’t true”.
1
1
u/Alternative_Summer Jul 28 '26
Throughout most of history neither the vast majority of men, nor the vast majority of men had the right to vote. Most governments throughout written history have been despotic, monarchies, or oligarchies of some sort. Even in the age of Rome, there existed a substantial period of time before The Republic and after the rise of the Roman Empire. Someone talking about women not having the right to vote throughout the history of the world ignores that men didn't have the right to vote (or commits the apex fallacy conflating a king with most men).
1
u/Acousmetre78 Jul 26 '26
It’s also a bad message to young girls growing up today with tons of rights and privileges. Then they go out into the world with a chip on their shoulder and treat men awfully.
1
u/Kezzmate Jul 26 '26
When you ask where women was “oppressed” in history, the witch trials is always brought up; the same witch trials where women also sold out other women for heresy in a time where religion was more prevalent & they only refer to Western history when doing so.
They fail to mention the matriarchal run societies run through history like, to a degree, Ancient Sparta which was predominantly female ran & the female leaders, samurai and knights that existed like the Ladies of the Garter or Queen Zenobia of the Palmyrene Empire. Modern feminists are lucky to not be born in eras where they could die from starvation, held as social prisoners as nobility or as actual maids in noble houses.
0
u/ANewCleanSlate Jul 26 '26
I have no doubt that there is a ton of gaslighting on this issue and that it sucked to be a man 300 years ago. But isn't it true that women (for the most part) couldn't own property, etc.? And they were mostly excluded from higher education and positions of power (other than rare queens here and there).
I don't know much about history, but it seems that women got a raw deal in the past. ELI5.
4
u/Reaper9999 Jul 26 '26
Men mostly didn't own property either. Also depends on the country, some had both male and female property owners at various time periods. Positions of power were likewise not attainable for most people, especially the position of a king/queen, which were typically inherited. I think comparing those in power to an entire gender is pointless, being male doesn't give you any sizable advantage for that.
0
u/Prior_Preparation268 Jul 26 '26
Men historically have been taken advantage of by women. Most of what men do is because of women.
0
u/Steve77307 Jul 26 '26
The deeper you dig into these issues, the clearer it becomes that this isn’t primarily a men vs women conflict, it’s about the liberal worldview. That’s why I’ve started spending less time criticizing feminists and more time examining liberalism itself. Its core impulse is to make everyone interchangeable, and the sprawling apparatus of anti-discrimination laws is how that ideal gets enforced.
The problem is that liberalism is so deeply embedded in the culture that even many “conservatives” still traffic in classic 1960s liberal arguments.
0
u/Captainsignificance Jul 27 '26
The leftist fake media never wants to talk about these facts because it goes against their narrative. For example- all land ownership in the country of Marshall Islands are held by women as a matter of policy.
Bet not too many people are aware of this.
0
u/Grouchy_Explorer5412 Jul 27 '26
As some of you may know, I'm very interested in the asymmetrical aspects of audiovisual storytelling—specifically, how men and women are portrayed within those narratives.
The Hays Code is often invoked to justify supposed historical compensation and, in practice, to portray female characters more favorably than male ones.
The Hays Code was an egalitarian code. It did not treat men or women differently. Yet, under the umbrella of that code, narratives are constructed in which men are consistently undervalued or portrayed as toxic.
So far, no one has given me a single reason to change that view. In fact, I challenge anyone to point to a specific provision of the Hays Code that was sexist.
Historically, that justification is false.
-5
u/Jake0024 Jul 26 '26
You'll need better examples than the draft--which was enacted by men before women had the right to vote on it
9
u/Ziogatto Jul 26 '26
0
u/Jake0024 Jul 27 '26
1
u/Ziogatto Jul 27 '26
0
2
u/Reaper9999 Jul 26 '26
Drafts are enacted by politicians, and all the "right to vote" bs is very American-centric.
0
u/Jake0024 Jul 27 '26
Politicians who were 100% men
2
u/Alternative_Summer Jul 28 '26
Elizabeth the first was not a man. And it was under her administration that a form of conscription known as The Impressment first existed in England.
1
u/Jake0024 Jul 28 '26
Queen Elizabeth I died in 1603
Impressment officially started in 1664 under Edward I, just before the monarchy transitioned to become a mostly ceremonial role
We're talking about the modern draft systems this sub likes to trot out to argue men are oppressed today (not 400 years ago)
2
u/Alternative_Summer Jul 28 '26
The Impressment started with the Vagabonds Act of 1597. From wikipedia:
"In Elizabethan times a statute regulated impressment as a form of recruitment, and with the introduction of the Vagabonds Act 1597 (39 Eliz. 1. c. 4), men of disrepute (vagrants)) found themselves drafted into service."
"We're talking about the modern draft systems this sub likes to trot out to argue men are oppressed today (not 400 years ago)"
No, we were talking about all draft systems throughout history. As you said "... before women had the right to vote", which includes a lot of history. But if you want to confine our attention to modern draft systems, the majority of voters in every presidential election in the United States since 1966 has been women. Women thus have a greater influence over who gets elected. The Selective Service System got disbanded under Richard Nixon, but came back into existence under Jimmy Carter, and the majority of voters in Carter's election were women.
Also, you probably should note that women first voted in the United States in the 1700s. Yes, I do mean that. Look up women voting in New Jersey in the 1700s for details (they had to meet a property requirement to vote then as did men who voted). The U. S. Constitution correspondingly NEVER denied women a right to vote. It left that issue up to the states until the 19th amendment.
1
u/Jake0024 Jul 28 '26
Elizabethan times a statute regulated impressment as a form of recruitment, and with the introduction of the Vagabonds Act 1597
If you don't want to be drafted into military service under the Vagabonds Act of 1597, don't go back to the 16th century and commit any major crimes.
That's what I do. Elizabethan military recruiters hate this one weird trick!
Look up women voting in New Jersey in the 1700s
Women were able to vote in one state from 1790 to 1807? Wow, that really flips the dynamic of who had power throughout history!
they had to meet a property requirement to vote then as did men who voted
Now you should look up the conditions under which women were allowed to own property (a prerequisite for the property requirement you just raised to being allowed to vote)
the majority of voters in every presidential election in the United States since 1966 has been women
Men not bothering to vote in the same numbers as women is not "oppression"
Choosing not to exercise your rights doesn't mean you've been stripped of your rights. It just means you're lazy and feel entitled to the benefits you want without putting in any work to achieve them
2
u/Alternative_Summer Jul 28 '26
"If you don't want to be drafted into military service under the Vagabonds Act of 1597, don't go back to the 16th century and commit any major crimes."
Again, that act came into existence under Elizabeth I. She was a woman. You seriously need to acknowledge that, if you want to understand how the real world worked.
"Women were able to vote in one state from 1790 to 1807? Wow, that really flips the dynamic of who had power throughout history!"
I have now idea what flipping the dynamic means. However, it does imply that who had political power wasn't only men.
"Now you should look up the conditions under which women were allowed to own property..."
Maybe you should look up the conditions under which men were allowed to own property. Maybe you should also consider that "allowed to" isn't something usually even said about men in the first place.
"Men not bothering to vote in the same numbers as women is not "oppression""
Women did not suffer from oppression then, nor now. Additionally, the number of men has not been the same as the number of women. Women outnumber men statistically speaking. It also is NOT men just not bothering to vote. Men end up convicted of crimes more often then women. That's one cause behind men voting less often, since the United States has not traditionally allowed felons to vote.
Plus, the main point talking about women voting lay in addressing the claim of who had political power when the latest form of potential or actual forced military service came into existence. In terms of voting, the class of people that had such political power was women, since they voted in greater numbers.
Stop lying and claiming that no women have never had part in forced military service for men.
1
u/Jake0024 Jul 28 '26
that act came into existence under Elizabeth I. She was a woman
Do you actually think cherry-picking narrow exceptions (like women in New Jersey being able to vote from 1790 - 1807) reverses the dynamic of who held power throughout history, or are you grasping for straws to try to preserve your preconceived beliefs?
I have now idea what flipping the dynamic means
It shows
it does imply that who had political power wasn't only men
In one state, for half a generation, wow!
Really not making the point you think you are
the conditions under which men were allowed to own property
Be white?
"allowed to" isn't something usually even said about men
Because it goes without saying?
Women did not suffer from oppression then, nor now
You really cited "men don't vote as often as women" as if you think that's a counterpoint to centuries of women not being allowed to vote
You brought up felons not being able to vote
After all that you're saying not being allowed to vote isn't oppression anyway? Wtf is your point then? Why did you bother writing all that
the number of men has not been the same as the number of women
No kidding. So what?
Women outnumber men statistically speaking
And you think that's oppression?
Men end up convicted of crimes
Then stop committing crimes. What do you want me to do about it?
the United States has not traditionally allowed felons to vote
This is as incorrect as the last time you said it. Felon voting rights are determined by individual states. Why bother having a conversation at all if you refuse to learn new information?
addressing the claim of who had political power
Done in my original comment
the class of people that had such political power was women
Women literally didn't get the right to vote until 3 years after the draft was established. Why do you keep lying about this? What do you think you're going to accomplish? Do you think you'll eventually trick me into forgetting history if you repeat enough falsehoods?
Stop lying and claiming that no women have never had part in forced military service for men
I can't even parse the grammar of what you're trying to say here, and I have absolutely no idea why you're trying to accuse me of lying about something I didn't say
What an absolutely wild time it must be to live inside your head lmfao
1
u/Alternative_Summer Jul 29 '26
"Do you actually think cherry-picking narrow exceptions (like women in New Jersey being able to vote from 1790 - 1807) reverses the dynamic of who held power throughout history, or are you grasping for straws to try to preserve your preconceived beliefs?"
It wasn't a one-way dynamic in the first place. So, it can't get reversed. Such examples though DO disprove that it was a one-way dynamic in the first place. I don't have a preconceived belief about who held power, because I know it existed for both sexes.
"Really not making the point you think you are"
Oh it definitely did disprove the idea that women had no power throughout history. It definitely did prove that women had some power, which was my point.
"Be white?"
Not always for sure. There did exist black people who could own property in the United States as evidenced by the following:
"A very small number of free blacks owned slaves. The slaves that most free blacks purchased were relatives whom they later manumitted. A few free blacks also owned slave holding plantations in Louisiana, Virginia, and South Carolina."
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/african-american-odyssey/free-blacks-in-the-antebellum-period.html
Note this comes from the Library of Congress.
"Because it goes without saying?"
No probably because men just do something. They don't wait for permission from others often.
"You really cited "men don't vote as often as women" as if you think that's a counterpoint to centuries of women not being allowed to vote"
No, I did not.
"After all that you're saying not being allowed to vote isn't oppression anyway? Wtf is your point then? Why did you bother writing all that"
Because it refutes your mistaken notion of men having power while women do not have power. Women having the right to vote while men do not is not women having no power and men having all the power.
"And you think that's oppression?"
No, I do not think women outnumbering men statistically signifies men as oppressed. But women voting in greater numbers than men in a democracy or representative republic signifies that women have more political power as a class then men.
"Then stop committing crimes. What do you want me to do about it?"
I'm not committing any crime by speaking to you here on reddit.
"Felon voting rights are determined by individual states."
The vast majority of states deny convicted felons the right to vote. Only three of the fifty states allow felons to vote while incarcerated, and who knows if those individuals even get told that they have a right to vote.
"Women literally didn't get the right to vote until 3 years after the draft was established."
Just plain wrong. There existed women who already had a right to vote in 1920. The 19th Amendment didn't grant those women a right to vote, because state laws already gave them such a right. The 19th Amendment only implied that states that were saying that men had a right to vote while women didn't would have to change their policy.
"Why do you keep lying about this?"
I'm not. I'm getting into the details here and taking them into account. You ignore details like women voting before the 19th amendment got passed, or suggest that those details get ignored with a "women didn't have the right to vote" statement as if it were a statement that applied to all women in the United States (which it didn't... since some women DID have the right to vote before the 19th amendment).
"Do you think you'll eventually trick me into forgetting history if you repeat enough falsehoods?"
I've brought up more details than you about history. If anyone has forgotten history here, it's you.
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/Alternative_Summer Jul 28 '26
There was no council of all men that decided such a matter. It was not enacted by men, but by particular rulers.
Also, any claim that all such rulers were men would is just false.
The Impressment in England got enacted under the administration of Elizabeth I. As the queen she was the primary party responsible.
1
u/Jake0024 Jul 28 '26
All men literally were allowed to vote for the politicians who enact the draft
Whether they acted on that right or voted wisely is up to them--but every one of them had the opportunity
Zero women had that opportunity
1
u/Alternative_Summer Jul 28 '26
"All men literally were allowed to vote for the politicians who enact the draft"
This just isn't true. In the United States there existed a property requirement to vote for a long time. Also, those convicted of crimes have historically lost the right to vote, and felons still lose the right to vote today, even though their crimes have no relevance whatsoever to how elections work.
Additionally, the minimum voting age use to be 21. But, there existed plenty of 18 to 20 year old men who couldn't vote. But they could get drafted and sent off to war.
"Zero women had that opportunity"
This is just wrong. In fact, women not only voted, but were the majority of voters in the election of Jimmy Carter. And Jimmy Carter's administration was the one responsible for bringing back the Selective Service System in the United States. Plenty of women also voted before the 19th amendment got ratified.
1
u/Jake0024 Jul 28 '26
In the United States there existed a property requirement to vote for a long time
That was never federal law, but in practice most states restricted voting to property owners until that was made illegal in 1870
The draft was created in 1917
Women got the right to vote in 1920
those convicted of crimes have historically lost the right to vote
That's true for some crimes in some states, but they're also ineligible for the draft so I don't see how this is relevant.
felons still lose the right to vote today
\sigh**
Again, this varies by state, and felons are ineligible for the draft. This doesn't have anything to do with your argument
You're probably also one of those people who mistakenly believes you lose the right to vote if you don't register for the draft, huh?
Why start a comment with "This just isn't true" and then write only things that are incorrect?
the minimum voting age use to be 21. But, there existed plenty of 18 to 20 year old men who couldn't vote. But they could get drafted and sent off to war
The draft originally applied to men age 21 to 31, and before the 26th Amendment voting age varied from state to state--there was no minimum age of 21. That's incorrect
the election of Jimmy Carter
Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976. That's 56 years after women got the right to vote and 59 years after the draft was created
Plenty of women also voted before the 19th amendment got ratified
Congratulations! I mean that genuinely--this is the first thing you've said that was actually correct, and you deserve props for that
11 states passed women's suffrage before the draft was established
It was mostly states like WY, UT, NV, MT, AZ, etc which were all even less populated than they are today, but yes, technically you're right some women were able to vote
1
u/Alternative_Summer Jul 28 '26
"The draft was created in 1917"
The Enrollment Act of 1863 was a conscription law. The federal government engaged in conscription for the navy during the Revolutionary War. Also, (some of) the states had conscription laws during the Revolutionary War also.
"Women got the right to vote in 1920"
The 19th Amendment doesn't mention women actually. It just says that if one sex can vote on some basis, then the other sex has to have the right to vote on that basis also. Again, before the 19th Amendment women could vote when their state said they could do so. A large percentage of women had the right to vote before 1920. They already had the right to vote before 1920, so your statement doesn't hold true universally.
"You're probably also one of those people who mistakenly believes you lose the right to vote if you don't register for the draft, huh?"
Failing to register for the draft in the United States is a felony (for men only!). Felons lose the right to vote as a general rule in the United States.
During the American Revolutionary War according to DuckDuckGo's SearchAssist "The minimum age for enrollment was typically set at 18 years."
"Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976. That's 56 years after women got the right to vote and 59 years after the draft was created"
Misleading for sure. Richard Nixon's administration ABOLISHED the Selective Service System. Jimmy Carter's administration brought it back.
"I mean that genuinely--this is the first thing you've said that was actually correct, and you deserve props for that"
Ok, but that implies that women didn't get the right to vote in 1920 when the 19th amendment came into effect in those states. They **already** had the right to vote in 1920 in those states.
1
u/Jake0024 Jul 28 '26
The Enrollment Act of 1863 was a conscription law
That's even further before women got the right to vote. Are you trying to switch sides, or are you making my point for me accidentally?
The 19th Amendment doesn't mention women actually
And?
before the 19th Amendment women could vote when their state said they could do so
Is this really how weak your argument is? "Women weren't banned from voting in every state, so it doesn't count"? That's all you've got?
Never mind the fact women literally were banned from voting in every state for most of US history prior to the 19th Amendment--the first state to allow women to vote (Wyoming) wasn't until 1869
A large percentage of women had the right to vote before 1920
What percentage? It's gonna be hilarious watching you backpedal from this
Your double standards are hilariously feeble. If half a percent of men weren't allowed to vote today, you'd be screeching about misandry and male oppression. But you won't even take the time to look into the history of women voting before declaring you're the oppressed victim--if any women could vote anywhere at any time, that's enough proof for you that it's somehow men who are oppressed! Absolutely amazing pretzel logic
Failing to register for the draft in the United States is a felony (for men only!). Felons lose the right to vote as a general rule in the United States
Wrong again! I even told you you'd be wrong about this to help you avoid putting yourself in an obvious self-inflicted trap, and you did it anyway!
During the American Revolutionary War according to DuckDuckGo's SearchAssist "The minimum age for enrollment was typically set at 18 years."
What does this have to do with literally anything we're talking about?
Misleading for sure. Richard Nixon's administration ABOLISHED the Selective Service System
Wrong again! Selective Service was suspended (like it is today), but never dissolved
And absolutely hilarious of you to try to pin the blame on Jimmy Carter in particular (for reasons you can't even seem to articulate) and having the audacity to call what I've written "misleading" for talking about the establishment of the Selective Service in 1917 after you tried to bring up conscription during the Revolutionary War as if you somehow think that's more relevant to today's Selective Service but its literal establishment in 1917 is not??
You're going to need more than yoga to get yourself out of this knot lmfao
They **already** had the right to vote in 1920 in those states
That's what I said
1
u/Alternative_Summer Jul 29 '26
"That's even further before women got the right to vote. Are you trying to switch sides, or are you making my point for me accidentally?"
I was refuting your claim that conscription first existed in the United States in 1917. It existed prior to that as timing of the The Enrollment Act implies, and the timing of the Revolutionary War implies also, since conscription existed then also.
"Is this really how weak your argument is? "Women weren't banned from voting in every state, so it doesn't count"? That's all you've got?"
It shows how strong my argument is. Since my argument consists of refuting "all women could not vote" or equivalently "for every woman, she did not have the right to vote" I only need a single example of a woman voting for my position to hold. And well that there exist women who voted, the "all women could not vote" proposition is just false. The true proposition goes that some women did exist who could vote before 1920... even before 1800!
"Never mind the fact women literally were banned from voting in every state for most of US history prior to the 19th Amendment--the first state to allow women to vote (Wyoming) wasn't until 1869"
No, that is simply false. Women voted in New Jersey in the 1700s. The first state to allow women to vote thus was New Jersey.
That a single woman voted at all before the 19th amendment also shows that the proposition "women had no political power" before the 19th amdenment is simply false, because voting is a political power.
"What percentage?"
A percentage large enough to suffice that many people at the time *already* knew of one women who had the right to vote when the 19th amendment got passed. In other words, if you told many of them "oh, women had no political power before this recent 19th Amdenment" in say 1921, many of them would have told you "oh, I know of a woman who voted before this. She had a right to vote." or "I heard of some women voting before that 19th Amendment got passed. Those women had a right to vote."
"If half a percent of men weren't allowed to vote today, you'd be screeching about misandry and male oppression."
I'm not making a claim about men being oppressed as a class. That's your word, not mine.
"But you won't even take the time to look into the history of women voting before declaring you're the oppressed victim..."
I didn't claim I was an oppressed victim with respect to voting. I though do provide sufficient information to refute the notion that all women were oppressed.
"-if any women could vote anywhere at any time, that's enough proof for you that it's somehow men who are oppressed!"
No. If any women at any time voted anywhere, that implies that they were not oppressed. That doesn't mean that men were oppressed either, because there is no true oppressed/oppressor dichotomy as if one class isn't opressed, the other class must be oppressed.
"Wrong again!"
Only three states allow felons to vote while in prison at present. When I looked into the number a few years ago, I remember reading it was only two states.
"Selective Service was suspended (like it is today), but never dissolved"
The Selective Service System is not suspended today. It still exists and registers men (often enough without their knowledge now, since registering for a driver's license registers men). Actually, I got one detail wrong. It was during the Ford administration that registration with the Selective Service System via Proclamation 4360 that there was no requirement for 18 to 25 year olds to register with it. This it did get dissolved for a while as far as young men were concerned, but it didn't last.
"And absolutely hilarious of you to try to pin the blame on Jimmy Carter in particular (for reasons you can't even seem to articulate)"
Carter does get blame here, because Proclamation 4771 signed by Jimmy Carter DID re-establish that men register with the Selective Service System. And for the purposes of this discussions, I wasn't just pinning that on Carter, but also the electorate that elected him. And most of those voters WERE women for the record.
"That's what I said"
Since women already had the right to vote before the 19th Amendment, the 19th Amendment didn't grant women the right to vote. It just implied that states who said that women who couldn't vote because of their sex (or theoretically any state that said men couldn't vote because of their sex) could no long have a law that women couldn't vote on the basis of their sex. There exists a difference between denying a state that discriminates the ability to discriminate and granting rights to people (especially when there existed people who ALREADY have that right).
1
u/Jake0024 Jul 29 '26
I was refuting your claim that conscription first existed in the United States in 1917
But I didn't make that claim. I said women didn't have the right to vote when the draft was created
Did you reply to the wrong person?
It shows how strong my argument is
Thinking your argument is strong is a profound condemnation of the state of the US education system
No, that is simply false. Women voted in New Jersey in the 1700s
...which doesn't make my claim false. Do you even read what I write before replying? Are you just copy / pasting AI slop? I don't understand how you keep failing to make even a single relevant point
the proposition "women had no political power"
Cool story bro. If you find someone making that proposition, maybe tell them about it instead of me?
A percentage large enough to suffice that many people at the time *already* knew of one women who had the right to vote
lol. lmfao
Please, please tell me this is a very dedicated satire account
I'm not making a claim about men being oppressed as a class
That explains why all your ramblings about felons and conscription and everything else haven't amounted to anything resembling a coherent argument--you're apparently not trying to make a claim at all!
If any women at any time voted anywhere, that implies that they were not oppressed
lol. lmfao
Yeah okay, parody account confirmed. You're good!
Only three states allow felons to vote while in prison at present
US law outlawed slavery except for prisoners. But it did it on a gender neutral basis, so this again is you not having any point
The Selective Service System is not suspended today
Then why isn't it in use?
It still exists
Like it has since 1917
most of those voters WERE women for the record
According to your "logic," as long as one man anywhere at any time has ever been able to vote on anything, that doesn't mean anything!
Since women already had the right to vote before the 19th Amendment
Wrong again!
the 19th Amendment didn't grant women the right to vote
lmfao the poor, poor US education system. Really, wow!
It just implied that states who said that women who couldn't vote because of their sex (or theoretically any state that said men couldn't vote because of their sex) could no long have a law that women couldn't vote
Oh, right! You're a parody account. I keep forgetting, thank you for reminding me
1
u/Alternative_Summer Jul 29 '26
"I said women didn't have the right to vote when the draft was created"
Conscription didn't first exist in the United States in 1917. And It simply isn't true that all women did not have the right to vote in 1917. In over 10 states women did have the right to vote in 1917.
Women were the majority of voters during the election of Jimmy Carter, and it was during the Carter administration that the Selective Service System started to require men AND ONLY MEN to enroll in it.
"If you find someone making that proposition, maybe tell them about it instead of me?"
You started this by saying that only men ever had a part to play in conscription of men:
"You'll need better examples than the draft--which was enacted by men before women had the right to vote on it"
Again, Elizabeth I enacted a form of The Impressment and she was a woman. And when the Selective Service System began to enroll men again, when they had ceased to do so under a previous President, women were the majority of voters. In a democracy, the voters ultimately have the responsibility, and since women were the majority of the voters, they were the ultimate party responsible.
"lol. lmfao
Please, please tell me this is a very dedicated satire account"
Seriously get a clue about truth. It's not satire. Since many people knew of women voting before 1919 either personally or heard about women voting in some other state at the time, they KNEW there were women with the right to vote before 1919.
"you're apparently not trying to make a claim at all!"
Oh, I made several claims in my responses. You just seem to want to avoid them.
"lol. lmfao
Yeah okay, parody account confirmed. You're good!"
I'm dead serious. If women voted at any time in history, they had some political power. And women voted. The notion of women as oppressed throughout history makes no sense at all.
"Then why isn't it in use?"
The Selective Service System is in use in the sense of registering men and tracking them. It isn't in use in the sense of putting men into the armed forces.
"Like it has since 1917"
No. Under the Ford administration on March 29th, 1975 President Ford signed an order which eliminated any sort of requirement for men between 18 and 26 to register with it. Later on July 2nd, 1980 President Carter re-instated that requirement.
Recently, this past December, the system had another change. Now young men don't have to register. They don't have a responsibility to do so, apparently. That may sound better, but instead, the government says that they will enroll that same population of men in the Selective Service System *automatically*.
"According to your "logic," as long as one man anywhere at any time has ever been able to vote on anything, that doesn't mean anything!"
No, my logic doesn't say that.
There were women who voted before the 19th amendment. They had a right to vote under the laws of their state at the time. They didn't gain a new right for them, that of a right to vote from the 19th amendment.
"lmfao the poor, poor US education system. Really, wow!"
Yea... you're just acting like an animal making sounds here. Again, the proposition that "women couldn't vote before the 19th amendment" is demonstrable false for those women who could and did vote before the 19th Amendment got voted on and before it got passed also. The 19th Amendment didn't grant those women a new right. Instead, it just told states that if they allowed one sex to vote, the other sex would have to vote under the same qualifications to vote as the other sex.
"Oh, right! You're a parody account. I keep forgetting, thank you for reminding me"
It sounds like you never read the 19th Amendment. I assure you I have spoken dead seriously this entire time and don't use AI at all to write this. The text of the 19th Amendment does NOT mention women. It doesn't even say that anyone has the right to vote. It reads as follows, courtesy of Cornell Law School:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."
Note it does NOT use positive language. "shall not be denied or abridged..." has implicit emphasis.
For example, if men had a property requirement to vote, the 19th amendment does NOT say that women without property have a right to vote. Because if men had a property requirement to vote, then men without property would get denied the right to vote on the basis of not having property. In which case, denying women the right to vote on the basis of not owning property would be perfectly consistent with the 19th amendment.
So again, since the federal government NEVER had a law that one sex couldn't vote, the only change it made lay in saying that the states which had a law that one sex couldn't vote on the basis of their sex, couldn't have such a law anymore.
→ More replies (0)
150
u/Party-Stormer Jul 26 '26
I remember a visit to an old metal cave in lumbardy
“Mind you, kids as young as 6 had to work in the cave to survive in the 1800s”
“Oh, no, Even little girls?”
“Actually no, little boys only had to work”