- Joined
- May 20, 2019
Yes. It's the true tragedy of feminism which of course never actually empowered women. Feminism is rooted in Marxism so naturally their first target was to attack the middle class single income family. A man supporting his family with only his job was a beautiful thing enabled by capitalism that allowed his wife to take care of the home, raise their children and not have to worry if they would lose the house if she didn't work.
If anything feminism as a rich woman thing is just poverty chic, it's rich women quite literally appropriating the problems of the working class so that they could look cute. Though to be fair, boredom and aimlessness probably had a bigger impact then we realize. As we are seeing in this very thread, boredom leads to people doing stupid things. I doubt the riots would have been so big if Americans hadn't been forced into quarantine.
to be fair you named the groups who want to take women's rights away in your own post: MRA, MGTOW, manosphere tards. It's hard to say how big those groups actually are but they are prominent and well known.
My concern is that these things have a tendency to grow the more malcontents there are. That's where the traitorous media comes into play, because the more they make it seem like men and women are enemies the more the two camps of feminists vs manospheres will grow and that's the kind of war that society doesn't win. It destroys relationships, it sets family members against each other.
Of course women want to stay home if given the choice. But my point (that very few people appear to understand) is that through out human history women have not had that choice. Whether by necessity or by government fiat, women have had to work even if all of that work wasn't hard labor. Who breastfed the babies born from the Duke's wife? It wasn't the actual Duke's wife, it was the wetnurse from the serf families. Who educated the children of the merchant's wife? It wasn't the merchant's wife, it was the governess they hired (a lucrative job even before the advent of the women's vote.) Who made the fine clothes for the Duke and his family to wear? It was the seamstresses and weavers. Who do you think made up the vast majority of seamstresses and weavers? Empress Theodora was the daughter of a bear tamer before she married Emperor Justinian. Her mother was a dancer and an actress. Those sound suspiciously like jobs to me.
Why did these women work even if they had no political capital and no ideology to motivate them and if they wanted to stay home more than anything else? Because they needed to make money to support themselves and their families. In the case of the wetnurse, refusing work could have meant a death sentence.
My point through out all of this is: the right wing is fighting against a boogeyman that never existed. They say "a woman's place is at the hearth" but they ignore how many times women have not been able to stay at the hearth which is most of human history. They ignore how women need to support themselves and be independent and how this has been a known force for thousands of years.
I'm sorry if I came off as condemning you for not coming down on retarded men harshly enough, I should have chosen my words more carefully. My broader point is this: if you don't recognize the history of women working, of the female workforce, of female dominated industries that have prevailed even before women's suffrage (like that governess job I mentioned; indeed, teaching has been female dominated for a very long time) then you are in for a big fat load of trouble. And it only serves to set women against you and that this could backfire horribly.
(heh, only art kids will get this reference.)
