Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Combating Feminist Revisionist History


Feminist have completely rewritten history so much so that it is tantamount to the Nazis winning WWII. Imagine then that throughout culture it was simply common knowledge that in the past, the Jews ruled over everything and were the oppressors of the German people. Good thing payback and discrimination was enacted against them the common German would think. It is not so different post feminist occupied America.

Something I've noticed that is lacking in the MRA community is a counterforce and confrontation to feminist revisionist history. I find that when you bring up present concerns with women or feminists as soon as you have a point they revert back to some imaginary time in the past and legitimize any injustice upon men, boys husbands and fathers as rightful payback for the years that women were treated like "slaves" and "animals".

Through women's revisionist history they have managed to make themselves out to be the victims of all humanity. It will take time to analyse and expose these things but it must be done. MOST ALL AMERICANS HAVE BOUGHT INTO feminist lies of one sort or another. Feminists are master manipulators.

----------------------------------------
Feminist says:

"YOUR LEGAL PROPERTY. You deprived us, women, of the right to divorce, own property, get custody of our children, denied us access to education and high paying jobs to support ourselves, legally took any wages we did manage to earn away from us. You beat us, and raped us in the name of "marital relations". You deprived us of the right to vote. You prostituted us and you even murdered us."

First of all women were not kept tied up like dogs. Chivalry, reverence and elevation of women was common. Jan 5, 1643 was the first recorded divorce in the American colonies. In the first record of a legal divorce in the American colonies, Anne Clarke of the Massachusetts Bay Colony is granted a divorce from her absent and adulterous husband.

You see, adultery along with domestic violence was forbidden. Legislation was enacted in the American colonies that outlawed domestic violence in 1641. It was not common for women to be beaten by their husbands. Women didn't walk around the town square bruised, injured with black eyes and broken bones. Would you like to guess which gender has always reserved the right to slap and scorn the other since the Victorian era at least...women.

Yes, husbands were considered the head of the household and solely responsible for the welfare and wellbeing of his wife and children. Men were expected to be the religious and spiritual leaders of their family as well. You come from a very sick place lady and your view on the world is entirely warped.

Upon female ownership of property, women and children were considered the core of society and as such inheritance was passed down to male offspring. A male with resources had a good chance of being a suitor to a woman who would accept his devotion to her in marriage. Men must work and provide money and all the needs and lifestyle he could possibly afford her and his children. Women owned plenty of family possessions which is different from property or business which was passed on through male offspring.

"denied us access to education and high paying jobs to support ourselves"

Women have attended schooling since the very founding of the American colonies onward. College was uncommon for the vast majority of people of both genders for a long time. There was no such thing as "high paying jobs". We were largely an agrarian society until the Industrial Revolution. I suppose we could have asked women to do this work but I'm sure most thought it improper for a woman to slave her ass off with arduous and intense muscular labor. Furthermore, why would a woman want to support herself, she has a devoted husband who would get down on one knee, offer her gold and jewels and support her FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE AND AFTER. Living by one's self, making a life for one's self alone and thus "supporting yourselves" was unheard of. Back then the relationship between men and women and thus the formation of family was sacred.

"Legally took any wages we did manage to earn away from us."

Family income was always shared. Yes, the man was the one expected to make financial decisions for his family. Women have been in the workforce for quite some time despite popular belief, especially among the lower classes. Yes, a wife would bring home wages and her husband would make decisions on how best to use what they could pull together to support his family.

There were no products like you think of today, no major amenities NO CONSUMER CULTURE FILLED WITH GOODIES OF ALL KINDS. EVERYTING was made of metal, wood, glass, plant material or stone...EVERYTHING.

We are talking money spent for to provide for the basic necessities of the family. There was no strong and affluent middle class.

"You beat us, and raped us in the name of "marital relations"

Your idea that rape was a common form of marital relations is absurd. If you mean that part of a wifes expected reciprocal duty to her husband was to be sexually available to him even when one is not in the mood for it yes, this was expected of wives.

JUST LIKE YOU, MEN HAVE A SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE CYCLE. Our bodies need to release at regular intervals. Masturbation and spilling ones seed alone and onto the ground was considered vile. It is still deeply hurtful and humiliating for a man to go to the bathroom and masturbate or to do so to pornography when his wife is in the other room. How hard is it to lay on your side for him???

"You deprived us of the right to vote."

Actually Anti-Suffragism was a political movement composed mainly of women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti_suffrage

Men never denied women the right to vote....they never asked for it and when they did many women were against it..not men. Furthermore non land owning men could not vote either. Only those who owned land had the right to vote. Men gained suffrage and women gained it sometime later...when they asked for it.

Also voting was considered a family decision. Men and women were not separate socio-political and socio-economic classes in conflict with each other as we are now. It was one vote per family and men were considered the public speakers of their family. Men and women were virtually one back then. The family and the mated pair bond WAS the individual economic, social and political unit.

"You prostituted us and you even murdered us."

Murder of ones husband or wife has always been a capitol offense under law. As far as prostitution goes would you like to know the fate of young lower class men??? You prostitute yourselves so don't give me that argument. Try being conscripted as cannon fodder in war so men can provide you the territory and resources you demand we provide to you.

Women were not only protected like children and infantilized they were not accountable for their actions by law nor held to much of any regard to be responsible for anything. It is not much different to this day.

50 comments:

Daniel Martinez said...

Hello, mi name is Daniel Martínez
I have a MRA blog in wich I translate the best articles from english into spanish.

This is my blog
http://derechosdeloshombres.blogspot.com/

I would like to have your permission to translate this article into spanish and to publish it.

I will be waiting for your reply.

Bwec said...

You sure can Daniel. Please put a link to my blog if you can.

Anonymous said...

"Something I've noticed that is lacking in the MRA community is a counterforce and confrontation to feminist revisionist history. I find that when you bring up present concerns with women or feminists as soon as you have a point they revert back to some imaginary time in the past and legitimize any injustice upon men, boys husbands and fathers as rightful payback for the years that women were treated like "slaves" and "animals"."

The reason for this is because MRAs lack credibility in their claims that so-called feminist history belongs to some "imaginary time". That's the same as those people who deny that the holocaust happened. Ironic considering this blog likens feminists to nazis. Before you make that accusation, you and all your little MRAs buddies need to look in the mirror to see the real nazis.

Anonymous said...

To Anon: Do you have anything to actually add to the conversation or did my post just blow you out of the water?

Anonymous said...

"To Anon: Do you have anything to actually add to the conversation or did my post just blow you out of the water?"

You didn't blow me out of the water. Cherry picking puritain laws as representative of American domestic violence and divorce law proves my point that MRAs, or in this case, you, lack credibility. Puritain law was rarely enforced, and it didn't mean shit after 1694 when the puritain charter was revoked by the king of England. Throughout most of the 18th and 19th century, wifebeating was allowed in most colonies or states in some form (physical chastisement). It wasn't until the 1870s that most states outlawed wifebeating, but unfortunately for women, wifebeating was defined as a "private family matter". That said, the American legal system defined a "crime" an offense against the public (assault by a stranger) or state while a "civil matter" was defined as offenses against private parties (husband and wife). Since domestic violence was considered a "private family matter", it wasn't considered a CRIME. Prosecution of domestic violence cases as a crime were difficult if not impossible because the judges and prosecutors were reluctant to pursue it as such. It wasn't until the 1970s that domestic violence was defined as a CRIME. So laws against domestic violence didn't mean shit until 32 years ago. And even with domestic violence being defined as a crime, we still have problems with it being treated as a "private family matter" by the courts. So don't bother trying to blow smoke up my ass about the history of our domestic violence laws. I'm well aware of them, and you have no idea what your talking about.

"Men must work and provide money and all the needs and lifestyle he could possibly afford her and his children."

In the european dowry system inherited by America, a wife's dowry was the biggest infusion of wealth and cash a man would get in his life up until 1840. This wasn't just the upper classes either because it wasn't unusual for european and american girls to work as domestics for several years so they could save enough money for their dowries. OTOH, very few men could support their entire families until the middle of the 20th century. Through most of American and european history, EVERYONE-husband, wife, and children contributed to the household income. Just because a man had the legal right to own the income the rest of the family produced doesn't mean he supported them. The whole family was an economic asset.

Anonymous said...

"We were largely an agrarian society until the Industrial Revolution. I suppose we could have asked women to do this work but I'm sure most thought it improper for a woman to slave her ass off with arduous and intense muscular labor"

Women and men worked side by side (along with the kids) in the family business-didn't matter if it was in the fields or candlestick making. Women also had to give birth, raise children, and take care of the household chores. Your dreaming if you think men supported women through most of history. Also, women and children were the backbone of the Industrial Revolution because they made up a probably half the work force if not more. They worked 16 hour days, and they were hired to do a lot of factory jobs, etc., because they could be paid less than men (read:exploited). The worse job for women was working in the coal mines. I'll be you didn't know that, did you? The women worked long hours crawling in and out of narrow tunnels hauling coal harnessed to them because they were small enough to fit in coal tunnels men couldn't. They worked without protective laws, developed lung cancer, and A LOT OF THEM WORKED WHILE PREGNANT. There are several stories of women giving birth in the coal mines. Yeah, you men really had it hard.

Anonymous said...

"Yes, a wife would bring home wages and her husband would make decisions on how best to use what they could pull together to support his family."

Oh, bullshit! Study after study show that women spend much more of their income on their children then men do. Men mostly want to have a few drinks and a good time before they hand over their wallets (if do at all). OTOH, those guys with wives in the coal mines probably spent her money on cigarettes, alchohol, and whores because they were legally entitled to their wife's income.

"Your idea that rape was a common form of marital relations is absurd."

Marial rape is the most common rape there is because it's the hardest to prove and men know this.

"If you mean that part of a wifes expected reciprocal duty to her husband was to be sexually available to him even when one is not in the mood for it yes, this was expected of wives."

That's sexual coercion with the law on his side. Sexual coercion is a form of rape.

"It is still deeply hurtful and humiliating for a man to go to the bathroom and masturbate or to do so to pornography when his wife is in the other room. How hard is it to lay on your side for him???"

Because it's more humiliating for us to "lay on our side" when we're not in the mood just so you can have a quickie. We're not your private fuck toys. If you treat us like human beings, maybe you guys might (gasp) get laid more often! Besides, if we're not in the mood, we're not horney. If we're not horney, we're not going to be lubricated enough for penetration. Sex when your dryer than the desert can be painful. You guys aren't worth it! And we could have sex with you 10 times a day, and you would still masturbate and look at porn. This isn't our problem. Deal with it yourselves!

"Actually Anti-Suffragism was a political movement composed mainly of women."

How is that relevant? Women have been brainwashed by the patriarchy for thousands of years. Not all women are going to be able to shake off the effects of that right away. In fact, some never do. It's just one big case of Stockholm Syndrome as far as I'm concerned. Fortunately, enough women have managed to break free enough to change things in a big way. That's why you guys are running scared.

"As far as prostitution goes would you like to know the fate of young lower class men???"

In most cases, it will be better than the fate of lower class women.

"You prostitute yourselves so don't give me that argument."

The average prostitute in America is between 12-14 years old. That's hardly old enough to have a choice. Most prostitutes throughout history started off as children servicing ADULT MEN you idiot!

"Try being conscripted as cannon fodder in war so men can provide you the territory and resources you demand we provide to you."

You started the wars, we didn't! That said, I'm a military veteran. I volunteered. Why isn't your ass on the front lines little boy? Because women like me help keep the numbers up in an ALL VOLUNTEER MILITARY so that little shitheads like you don't have to be drafted. Little shitheads who want to whine about how bad you've got it. Ha! You have it better than anyone else on that planet, you whiny ass baby! That's a fact!

Anonymous said...

"Marial rape is the most common rape there is because it's the hardest to prove and men know this."

Yes it is hard to prove a negative.

I don't see any hard stats on women coal miners vs men coal miners.

The whole "opposition" is a product of an active imagination.

Perhaps this is what your historical revisionist feminist study group taught you, but it is far from the
truth.

I do love to see a rabid feminazi at work though, the OP must have done something correctly.

BTW: You where never in the military,and if you where,you cost resources rather than made them.

Anonymous said...

P.S.
Go lay on your side and get ready for me big girl.

Try not to squeal.

bwec said...

"women spend much more of their income on their children then men do. Men mostly want to have a few drinks and a good time before they hand over their wallets (if do at all)."

You are one sick woman. LOL where do you get this stuff..Great material. LOL yes yes the majority of what men produce goes to ourselves. You are out of your mind.

You're joking right, men's money goes to women and women's money goes to themselves. Women make 80+ percent of all consumer purchases and spend much more money on themselves than men do.. Women are the largest holders of debt. THIS IS A FACT!.

You've got to be kidding me. Getting women to spend on themselves is easy. Next time you go to a shopping mall or a shopping center I want you to look at all the stores AND ASK YOURSELF WHO THEY ARE FOR.

Do you really think that women don't spend more money on themselves than they do upon men? You are a really ungrateful and hateful little bigot aren't you.

On the whole, the produce of net production flows in the direction of women..PERIOD.

bwec said...

"wifebeating was allowed in most colonies or states in some form (physical chastisement)."


Something being allowed and something not being on the law books are two different things. You can say this about anything. You can say anything was allowed but this does not mean it was common.

Wifebeating, despite what you would like to believe in your twisted feminist mind was not acceptable. Don't think for a second that women did not control, manipulate and slap their husbands. In fact such traditions of beating men IS STILL ACCEPTED in our culture and carries on to this day. VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN IS NOT OK.

It is well known that "women hit more than men do". Women are the perpetrators of the MAJORITY OF PHYSICAL BATTERY AND ASSAULT! This is common knowledge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks&

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/SXkqCwNrO2I/AAAAAAAAAG8/WauynnAha1g/s1600-h/ScreenShot003.bmp

Anonymous said...

"Just because a man had the legal right to own the income the rest of the family produced doesn't mean he supported them. The whole family was an economic asset."

Ok, if you prefer, the family supported itself...are you happy?
Yes, you are correct, the family was an economic asset to all of it's members. Divorce was unheard of.

It was only when women created no-fault divorce, default access to the economic assets of the family outside of marriage and default female child custody did the family dissolve. Women initiate 70+ percent of all divorce. Women still insist that they should be entitled to men's resources though the man is no longer a part of the family and the lives of his children.

Let me make something perfectly clear to you.. You are correct, the family is no longer the central economic unit of society but rather men and women are separate socio-political and socio-economic classes that are in large part in conflict with each other. Let me make something else clear, men own women and a woman's family NOTHING.

bwec said...

"Women and men worked side by side (along with the kids) in the family business-didn't matter if it was in the fields or candlestick making. Women also had to give birth, raise children, and take care of the household chores. Your dreaming if you think men supported women through most of history."

Then what are you complaining about? Believe me, women have become so insufferable and always complaining that you really should begin to find some way to support yourselves. IS THERE ANY WAY WOMEN WILL BE ABLE TO DO THIS... ESPECIALLY AFTER DIVORCE? Currently you are practically declared children under law with the Rights of an adult.

"Also, women and children were the backbone of the Industrial Revolution because they made up a probably half the work force if not more. They worked 16 hour days, and they were hired to do a lot of factory jobs, etc., because they could be paid less than men (read:exploited)."

Yes, true and this is what...men's fault? Yes, we would have supported you better but the Industrial Revolution was hard on us all. I'm sorry you were not back at home being taken care of.

"The worse job for women was working in the coal mines. I'll be you didn't know that, did you? The women worked long hours crawling in and out of narrow tunnels hauling coal harnessed to them because they were small enough to fit in coal tunnels men couldn't."

Interesting..I wish women were down there with us men now a days. So much for equal work aye


"They worked without protective laws, developed lung cancer, and A LOT OF THEM WORKED WHILE PREGNANT."

Good, women should work while they are pregnant..right? As far as the rest goes...join the club. Men are 98% of workplace deaths.


"There are several stories of women giving birth in the coal mines."

Well...where else do you think you should you be...at home???

bwec said...

"If you mean that part of a wifes expected reciprocal duty to her husband was to be sexually available to him even when one is not in the mood for it yes, this was expected of wives."

You say to the above: "That's sexual coercion with the law on his side. Sexual coercion is a form of rape."


-- Hmmmm rape...interesting.....hey I don't mean to get off subject but I'm kinda tired of all this with our women, do you know of women from another country or culture where men live in harmony with them? I'd really like to marry them or move there.

bwec said...

"Actually Anti-Suffragism was a political movement composed mainly of women."

You said to the above: "How is that relevant? Women have been brainwashed by the patriarchy for thousands of years. Not all women are going to be able to shake off the effects of that right away."

Lol, yes you see we had you so brainwashed that we didn't even have to protest your request to vote..we brainwashed you to be agents of The Patriarchy muuuuuhahahahahaha muuuuuhahahahah we Patriarchs are crafty aren't we : )

bwec said...

"You started the wars, we didn't!"

LOL, in that case why don't you find some of your own land, draw lines around it and protect the resources within it for the benefit of men?


"That said, I'm a military veteran. I volunteered."

According to your own statement that makes you a war monger. Besides, I'm glad, not only should women serve in the military they should be drafted to war and front line combat.

Anonymous said...

"Do you really think that women don't spend more money on themselves than they do upon men? You are a really ungrateful and hateful little bigot aren't you."

Most women spend money on themselves for the benefit of men. All that money on clothes, hair, nails, make up, bikini waxes, jewelry, beauty facials, plastic surgery, etc., is an attempt to meet the impossible beauty standards of our patriarchal culture. We are told from the cradle that we have to look forever 20 years old, or we aren't worth anything. That's the ultimate male privilege blind spot to expect women to look like your porn fantasies than gripe about the money spent.

As for the rest of your arguements, they don't hold water. You can't refute anything I've said. Most of your claims are ridiculous, or cherry picked historical facts twisted around. Like I said, most MRAs don't confront and counter so-called "feminist revisionist history" because they know they can't without looking stupid. You proved that over and over.

"According to your own statement that makes you a war monger. Besides, I'm glad, not only should women serve in the military they should be drafted to war and front line combat."

You think women should be drafted to war and front line combat like men, but you think men should be the leaders in the home? That's a fucked up way of thinking. Personally, I don't have a problem with women being drafted and in front line combat. Yet, in your view we are good enough to die with you guys in combat, but not good enough to be treated as equals in the home which is the place a woman is more likely to be murdered (despite your claims to the contrary). Wow, no wonder why you can't find a woman. Good luck! Your going to need it.

"Go lay on your side and get ready for me big girl."

Make sure you tell me when your inside. It's hard to tell with a small penis.

Anonymous said...

"Hmmmm rape...interesting.....hey I don't mean to get off subject but I'm kinda tired of all this with our women"

Well, here are some things you can do so you don't get accused of rape:

Sexual Assault Prevention Tips Guaranteed to Work!

1. Don’t put drugs in people’s drinks in order to control their behavior.

2. When you see someone walking by themselves, leave them alone!

3. If you pull over to help someone with car problems, remember not to assault them!

4. NEVER open an unlocked door or window uninvited.

5. If you are in an elevator and someone else gets in, DON’T ASSAULT THEM!

6. Remember, people go to laundry to do their laundry, do not attempt to molest someone who is alone in a laundry room.

7. USE THE BUDDY SYSTEM! If you are not able to stop yourself from assaulting people, ask a friend to stay with you while you are in public.

8. Always be honest with people! Don’t pretend to be a caring friend in order to gain the trust of someone you want to assault. Consider telling them you plan to assault them. If you don’t communicate your intentions, the other person may take that as a sign that you do not plan to rape them.

9. Don’t forget: you can’t have sex with someone unless they are awake!

10. Carry a whistle! If you are worried you might assault someone “on accident” you can hand it to the person you are with, so they can blow it if you do.

And, ALWAYS REMEMBER: if you didn’t ask permission and then respect the answer the first time, you are commiting a crime — no matter how “into it” others appear to be.

Anonymous said...

"Most women spend money on themselves for the benefit of men. All that money on clothes, hair, nails, make up, bikini waxes, jewelry, beauty facials, plastic surgery, etc., is an attempt to meet the impossible beauty standards of our patriarchal culture. We are told from the cradle that we have to look forever 20 years old, or we aren't worth anything. That's the ultimate male privilege blind spot to expect women to look like your porn fantasies than gripe about the money spent."

LOL, you spend it because you want to look good. Now, you're implying that narcissism is a form of "social responsibility".
And clothes don't provoke a "sexual urge". Most wear I've seen in woman's department are not bikinis. If I would have liked my women sexually attractive there would be no clothes for you. All women would just walk naked on the sidewalk. And a harry pussy is rather unattractive. However women have been shaving their crouch only during the 60's.

Women wear clothes and accessories because they like it.

Anonymous said...

And just another comment for all dumb lasses and lads here.
First of all to our "miss" here. Breeding with a male isn't "social responsibility" imposed by some idiotic authority. The fact that you have nunneries in the middle ages where women suppress their sexual urges in Eastern Europe despite a crowd of desperate bachelors dismisses your theory. And most fathers who have daughters try their best to find a suitable match for their daughters.
In fact the three pillars of the healthy family are the husband-wife relationship, the wife-mother-in-law relationship and the father-son-in-law relationship.
Even though bwec and you try hard to create a divide between blood and insult your ancestors (male and female) to prove a point shows that you are not worthy of being alive.
Just like with Genghis Khan, "rapist", "murderer", "scum". Many Mongolian, Persian and Central Asian women owe their gene-pool to him. Imagine Genghis Khan never existed.The inhabitants would be completely different.

Men and women have never been independent or "social classes". Collectivists like you have never been parents and from your posts I wish you'll never be. Every male is 50% woman and 50% man. Every woman is 50% woman and 50% man.

Anonymous said...

When Themistocles' son was saucy towards his mother, he said that this boy had more power than all the Greeks,for the Athenians governed Greece, he the Athenians, his wife him, and his son his wife. (Plutarch).

The voice of common sense, not like bwec or the dumb lass who tried to counter him.Clearly neither respects their ancestors.

Anonymous said...

"LOL, you spend it because you want to look good. Now, you're implying that narcissism is a form of "social responsibility"."

No, you idiot, it's SOCIAL IRRESPONSIBILITY on the part of MEN who put their impossible patriarchal beauty standards on women and then gripe when women spend money to try and fill those standards. If we do this to "look good", who is it for? Men. If that's narcissism, it's actually a reflection of male narcissism who feel women have to look a certain way to please them.

"If I would have liked my women sexually attractive there would be no clothes for you."

Yeah, that's why men never seem satisfied with women just getting naked before sex. A lot of them pressure their women to wear thongs, pasties, stiletto heals, teddies and all sorts of other crap to give them a show. And it doesn't matter what women actually wear on the street, there's always going to be some guy who finds it sexually attractive. Tight, long sleeved turtle neck sweater. Hey if it shows off a woman's boobs and maybe even their nipples most men are going to be game. Tight hip huggers and belly baring halter tops. Men salivate. Mini-skirts-men love them. Even a T-shirt with a modest V-neck is enough for men to try to get a peek. So, don't give me that shit that men don't love it or even prefer it when women wear that stuff. Anything that accentuates boob and butts makes your eyes pop. And you love it. AND THAT STUFF COSTS MONEY. And your words that you don't like hairy pussies. Shaved beavers cost money to maintain asshole. It isn't like shaving your face. Imagine if all women said they were going to forego shaving and waxing to "save money". You would have a caniption fit. You just proved my point asshole!

Anonymous said...

"Even though bwec and you try hard to create a divide between blood and insult your ancestors (male and female) to prove a point shows that you are not worthy of being alive. Just like with Genghis Khan, "rapist", "murderer", "scum". Many Mongolian, Persian and Central Asian women owe their gene-pool to him. Imagine Genghis Khan never existed.The inhabitants would be completely different."

Genghis Khan fathered many sons and daughters with the thousands of women he raped (as evidence by DNA evidence on the Y chromosome).
. However, the children who ultimately ruled came most from his first and primary wife. He had 4 sons who accompanied him when he pillaged, plundered, and raped. However, he had to depend on other relatives to actually manage the empire for him. Genghis Khan had 4 daughters by his first and primary wife. He married them off in political alliance and gave them parts of his territory to rule. He set them in the north, south, east, and west of his empire to literally serve as his "protective shields". Genghis Khan gave his daughters ULTIMATE AUTHORITY TO RULE EVEN OVER THEIR HUSBANDS. Though they could neither read nor write, for the first time in human history the daughters managed to unite the silk trading route under a single leadership, added postal dispatches, hostels, security, increasing the efficiency of trade along the route heretofore never before seen in history, bringing to fruition one of the greatest empires the world has ever seen.

Anonymous said...

Genghis Khan dies, and he names his son Ogedei as his successor. Ogedei is an alcoholic, inept, self-centered ruler. One of his first big acts was to order 4,000 mongolian girls as young as 7 to be raped in front of their families. His sisters opposed him, and there's a strong possibility that he killed his own full sister (genghis Khan's favorite daughter). Unfortunately, Ogedei is such a bad alcoholic, his wife Torogene, A NON-MONGOLIAN WOMAN, steps in to partially rule in his place. After Ogedei dies, she assumes complete control of the whole empire. She dismisses her late husbands's ministers and replaces them with OTHER NON-MONGOLIAN WOMEN. One of these women was her assistant Fatima. Genghis Khan's other 3 sons weren't any better than Ogedei. Sorkhokhtani, widow of Genghis Khan's youngest son Tulei ruled Northern China and Eastern Mongolia. Ebuskun, widow of Genghis Khan's son Chaghatai ruled Central Asia (Turkestan). Only the Golden Horde of Russia was ruled by a male-Batu Khan. It didn't stop there. Ogedei's widow, Toregene, was eventually replaced by her inept son, Guyuk. Guyuk died after 18 months. Guyuk's widow, a another non-mongolian woman anmed, Oghal Ghamish took control of the empire like her mother-in-law. However, Genghis Khan's youngest son's widow, Sorkhokhtani contested her rule with full support of the 4 capable sons she raised to take the place of her inept husband. Each one of her son's became a Khan. All of Ghenghis Khan's daughters (actual Mongolian women) were capable rulers. Genghis khan's empire flourished because of this. However, when he dies, he does what most patriarchal societies do. HE SCREWED THEM OVER SO AN INEPT, ALCOHOLIC SON COULD SUCCEED HIM. This pushed the sisters out of power caused one of their deaths. The son and his brothers were so bad, their wives had to rule for them or succeed them. These women weren't even Mongolian (they were from conquered steppe tribes), but THEY ACTUALLY DID A GREAT JOB RUNNING THE EMPIRE. Sorkhokhtani, in particular, was so good, Persian chroniclers (who didn't like women rulers) were singing her praises.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, these women were eventually pushed out of power by male relatives. In fact, after this, very few women managed to rule except in small parts of Mongolia and Korea. These were only Mongolian women. Genghis Khan's empire lasted 150 years. In 1368, the mongol empire was overthrown by the Ming Dynasty. The Mongols retreated to their steppe homeland. While the men returned to squabbling over sheep and stealing horses, the women kept the imperial spirit alive. In the late 15th century, a new conqueror arose determined to restore the Mongol Empire of Genghis Khan.

She was Manduhai (this time an actual Mongolian woman), known forever to the grateful Mongols as Manduhai the Wise Queen. She took to the battlefield and, one by one, re-conquered the steppe tribes and united them into a single nation. The Ming Chinese had to expand the Great Wall to keep her out. Genghis Khan sired four self-indulgent sons who proved good at drinking, mediocre in fighting, and poor at every- thing else; yet their names live on despite the damage they did to their father's empire. Genghis Khan's daughters kept the empire running, but were replaced by inept alcoholic brothers. Because of their incompetence, their non-mongolians wives held the empire together until they were shoved out of power. When the empire was finally destroyed, it was a mongolian woman who reunited it. The only ancestors that should be respected ARE THE WOMEN WHO RULED AND SAVED THE DAMN EMPIRE. Forget about Genhis Khan! HIS DAUGHTERS AND SHOULD BE RESPECTED BY THEIR DESCENDENTS. Unfortunately, for them, they didn't have as many descendents as Genghis Khan and his raping, boozing, stupid sons. However, the people descended from Genghis Khan's sons VIA THE DAUGHTER-IN-LAWS WHO RULED FOR HIS STUPID SONS should be proud of FEMALE ANCESTORS. Maybe Mongolian women had a higher status, but it was still a patriarchy. It exploited and took for granted the intelligence, talents, and leadership skills of THEIR WOMEN, but in the end, screwed them over just like all the patriarchies before and since then. And the biggest slap in the face is the Mongolian empire wouldn't have been as successful or lasted as long if it wasn't for the women. Yeah, thanks for the example stupid ass! Again, it proved my point! Patriarchy is not good for women.

Anonymous said...

"First of all to our "miss" here. Breeding with a male isn't "social responsibility" imposed by some idiotic authority. The fact that you have nunneries in the middle ages where women suppress their sexual urges in Eastern Europe despite a crowd of desperate bachelors dismisses your theory. And most fathers who have daughters try their best to find a suitable match for their daughters."

First of all to the dumbass here, nunneries were places that a lot of aristocratic people dumped their daughters against their will because they didn't want to provide dowries for them. They worked their asses off. That said, many women did join nunneries because THEY WANTED TO ESCAPE THE PATRIARCHAL AUTHORITY OF MARRIAGE. In the nunnery, they didn't have to worry about dying an early death from childbirth or living under direct male authority. However, the ultimate authority for those nunneries was the catholic church-the most patriarchal authorities there is. It wasn't unusual for women to be raped by priests. OTOH, you mention my ancestors and how I disgrace them. The Western European Marriage system was patriarchal. Fathers more often than not arranged marriages, and a dowry was exchanged. However, how much control a husband or father had over their daughter, wife, or her dowry was different from locale to locale and time to time. Some women had more rights to dowries, inheritance, or property in the early middle ages than they did in the later middle ages or even the 18th century. Some women had less rights depending on time or place. Over time, the married couple came to be seen as the main economic unit over the extended family. Many women lived apart from their families to work and earn their own dowries. Yes, parents still had more influence over who daughters married and when they married. However,an adult woman who lived seperately and earned her own dowry had more bargaining power with her parents over who she married. In marriage, the married couple was the main economic unit, but the husband had complete control over his wife's dowry, property, earnings, and person. However, the couple's relative independence from the extended family meant that a wife could exert more pressure on her husband than in an extended family. She also had more incentive to exert that pressure.

Anonymous said...

You mentioned some bizarre relationship of husband-wife, mother-in-law/daugher-in-law, father-in-law/son-in-law. Those relationships weren't as prevalent in Western Europe. The home of MY ANCESTORS. In fact, those relationships weren't that prevalent-anywhere-in the eay you mention. In fact, you mentioned Genghis Khan's decendants among women from Persia, mongolia, central asia. Throughout most of history, most relationships in these regions were a daughter oweing her loyalty to her own kinship group. She married who her father told her to, and than her loyalty was to her husband's kinship group. In most cases, the husband didn't owe anything to the father-in-law upon receiving ownership of the wife. OTOH, the husband's ultimate loyalty was to HIS OWN FATHER. His wife's ultimate loyalty was TO HER FATHER-IN-LAW, HUSBAND, AND MOTHER-IN-LAW IN THAT ORDER.

Anonymous said...

In fact, it wasn't unusual for a girl to be mistreated and abused by her husband, her mother-in-law, and the rest of her husband's family. She usually didn't have any authority of her own until she had her own children-preferably sons. Her attachment to her own sons was dependant upon his authority over his wife. A lot of mother-in-laws tried to keep the bond between the son and his wife from getting too close. Yes, women in these societies could wield authority in her family even over husband, but only by maneurering within the family's reproductive system. By doing this, rather than by resisting male dominance within marriage or seeking closer ties to her husband, she ends up stenthening the patriarchal family.

Anonymous said...

The western european marraige system, by contrast, offered women more opportunities to affect the terms on which they entered marriage and more incentive to challenge patriarchal authority instead of bending it to their own ends. So, Western Europe was a patriarchy, but many women managed to challenge that authority for their own benefit. That's my ANCESTRAL HERITAGE.

Anonymous said...

It's because of this that I now live in a society where I have more rights than any women in Iran (Persia), Mongolia, or Cental Asia. I'm not a disgrace to my FEMALE ANCESTORS. I'm just carrying on their heritage BY BUCKING THE PATRIARCHAL TRADITION. OTOH, bwec is a disgrace because he is failing to carry on the patriarchal system of his ancestors. That's why he wants to move to another country where men and women live "in harmony" (read: complete male authority). What he doesn't realize is that a lot of women in those countries want to marry foreign men TO ESCAPE PATRIARCHAL TRADITION. That's what they think when they marry an
American man anyway. Unfortunately for them, the American men who want to marry them are men who are wanna-be patriarchs (read: abusers and losers).

Anonymous said...

Bwec can move over there, but he's in for a shock. Those patriarchal paradises won't look at him with respect. When a man leaves his country to marry a woman, he's giving into the MATRIARCHAL TRADITION where he lives with the woman's family. Poor idiot can't win either eay.

Bwec said...

Just out of curiosity anonymous, are you married? Have you ever lived in harmony with the enemy? Do you have children and if so what type of relationship do they have with their father?

Bwec said...

I understand that you are in favor of the matriarchal family correct?

What rights do you believe men should have within marriage in regard to our property, our bodies and thus the fruits of its labors and paternal rights to our children?

Anonymous said...

"Just out of curiosity anonymous, are you married?"

No.

"Have you ever lived in harmony with the enemy?"

What enemy is that? My ex-husband and I never considered each other "the enemy". We divorced because we grew apart. We had an amicable divorce. If your looking for War of the Roses, you won't find it here.

"Do you have children and if so what type of relationship do they have with their father?"

Yes. They see their father every day. He lives right down the street. I have sole legal and physical custody.

"I understand that you are in favor of the matriarchal family correct?"

I am in favor of an EGALITARIAN SOCIETY that is MATRILINEAL AND MATRIFOCAL.

"What rights do you believe men should have within marriage in regard to our property, our bodies and thus the fruits of its labors and paternal rights to our children?"

I believe men should have the same right as women to property, fruits of their labor, and rights to children WITHIN MARRIAGE. After all, they live together. However, if you want an example in a divorce, I'll give you mine. I have the house. Because it was jointly owned, I would have had to pay him half of what is was worth in order to keep it. The same if he wanted it. Otherwise, it would have been sold. OTOH, he would've still had to pay child support. He agreed to sign over complete ownership of the house IN LIEU of child support. I don't get any alimony because I've always worked and I didn't need or want it. Custody of kids wasn't an issue. He didn't have any problem giving me sole custody because he knew I always ask him his input about decisions concerning the kids. However, since they live with me, he doesn't have any problem with me making most of the decisions either. After all, I did when we were married even though he probably was more involved with his kids than most fathers. He sees the kids anytime he wants (or they want because he's so close). He gets them for regular overnights, and he doesn't abuse his visitation rights by dumping them on some girlfriend, or refusing to take them when it's his weekend because he would rather go to the bar or something. We settled this all out of court too.

Bwec said...

Interesting and would you say you agree more with equal custody or sole custody of one parent with visitation of 4 days a month with the other?

Which one and why?

Do you think many women alienate the children from their father and force upon him alimony and child support? Do you think that men are treated unfairly by family courts and family law?

If yes, do you think the laws should be changed and if so how?

Anonymous said...

"Interesting and would you say you agree more with equal custody or sole custody of one parent with visitation of 4 days a month with the other?

Which one and why?"

In the majority of marriages, mothers assume the role of primary caregiver to their children. Children need consistency and structure. Divorce is already an upheaval in their life. The best thing for a child is to continue the pattern that was ALREADY ESTABLISHED DURING THE MARRIAGE. In most cases, a mother was the primary caregiver. In other words, she was the parent who spent more time actually caring for the children DURING THE MARRIAGE. Because of that, she should be the custodial parent. It's as simple as that. My kids see their father every day, but mostly they run down the street to say hi when he gets home from work. They don't spend more than 15 minutes down there (unless it's his weekend). Once a week, their father comes to my house for supper. None of that justifies a 50/50 custody arrangement, and HE WOULDN'T WANT ONE ANYWAY. OTOH, most 50/50 custody situations rarely last for the long haul, and the kids usually end up in the custody of their mothers anyway. Mother custody is actually the MOST STABILE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT THERE IS.

Anonymous said...

"Do you think many women alienate the children from their father and force upon him alimony and child support?"

I think most fathers alienate their own kids. A lot of these guys who claim alienation usually behave in ways that makes the kids not want to see them. Dad doesn't make the effort to stick to a visitation schedule. He either makes excuses that he can't comes, or he says he will come, but doesn't show up or call. When Dad does take the kids, he leaves them with his girlfriend, grandma, or second wife so he can go out with his friends. The kids get sick of this crap and don't want to visit dad anymore. Mom is sick and tired of comforting disappointed kids and making excuses for dad. Finally, mom tells dad he the kids don't want to visit him, and she's not going to force them. All of a sudden, dad is screaming "alienation". Another common thing, mom sends kids to dad's house and finds out they haven't brushed their teeth, changed their clothes, or combed their hair the entire time. They eat junk food the whole weekend and are left to fend for themselves because dad wants to sleep in or watch Tv. Mom gets sick of it and tells dad to clean up his act or the kids aren't going over there until he does. Dad screams "alienation". Or the worse case, dad is an abuser who is actually dangerous to the kids and/or the mother. The mother tries to keep dad from getting visitation because every time he gets the kids, he harasses her, hits her, or screams names at her. The kids complain he is hitting them. They are afraid of him. Dad screams "alienation", and he gets visitation, or worse-custody. Very common tactic for an abuser to scream "alienation" and get custody.

Anonymous said...

As for alimony and custody, alimony is very rarely ever awarded these days. Also, the state makes dad pay child support even if the mother doesn't want him to. My ex doesn't pay child support because he agreed to waive me paying him for his half of the house. In other words, I accepted the house as his child support. OTOH, most mothers makes a lot of financial sacrifices because they have childcare obligations to meet. That might mean staying home with the kids because their jobs are too demanding to care for their kids, or working a lower paying job that gives her more flexibility. A mother's overall earning potential DECREASES because of this. The father isn't tied down with childcare obligations because he lets his wife take care of that. He has more freedom to concentrate on his work. His overall earning potential INCREASES. He might make the most or all the money, but he benefits from well cared for kids, a clean house, AND A HIGHER INCOME. His wife is entitled to that income because her activities allowed him to increase it. She deserves compensation for that. Any alimony she might get is HER HALF OF THE MARITAL ASSETS. She's entitled to it and child support. That said, I didn't take alimony because I didn't need or want it. I make enough. However, my ex-husband doesn't whine if I ask him to pay a doctor bill, or buys clothes for the kids. He does it because he knows it's for the benefit of THE KIDS. Even though he doesn't pay monthly child support, he paid it when he signed over the house.

"Do you think that men are treated unfairly by family courts and family law?"

No. Mothers have custody in 90% of custody cases because these cases are UNCONTESTED. These cases are settled out of court. In other words, both mother and father MUTUALLY AGREE to let the mother have custody. My own divorce falls under this. How is that unfair when dad agrees with it? This crap that mothers unfairly get custody most of the time is bullshit. The remaining 10% of custody cases are CONTESTED. These cases go to trial. Fathers win some sort of custody in 70% of CONTESTED CUSTODY CASES. Why? They have more money to litigate in court. If dad wants to drag mom to court for a long extended custody battle, he has more money and time to do so. A favorite tactic is to bankrupt the mothers, and they end up losing custody because they can't afford to keep fighting. Btw, the majority of fathers who fight for custody HAVE A HISTORY OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. This is their favorite thing to fight for custody because it's a way to continue punishing the victim (his children's mother) for leaving him. They like to make false accusations that the mother is unfit, alienating him from the kids, or lying about being abused. Another kind of father who wants to fight for custody is the guy who doesn't want to pay child support. This is a guy who usually didn't spend very much time with the kids when he was married to the mother, and he now decides he should have custody to save money. When he gets custody, he dumps said kids on grandma, second wife, girlfriend or whoever to raise. The irony of it all is that he usually spends more money in LEGAL FEES fighting a custody battle than he would if he has to pay child support. Very few men actually fight for custody because the mother is really unfit. The laws need to be changed to make sure these guys can't pull this crap anymore.

Anonymous said...

Btw, my own father was an abusive, narcissitic asshole. He pulled a lot of the shit I already discussed. I have personal experience with this shit, believe me.

Bwec said...

"I think most fathers alienate their own kids. A lot of these guys who claim alienation usually behave in ways that makes the kids not want to see them. Dad doesn't make the effort to stick to a visitation schedule. He either makes excuses that he can't comes, or he says he will come, but doesn't show up or call. When Dad does take the kids, he leaves them with his girlfriend, grandma, or second wife so he can go out with his friends."

Where did you obtain this information...out of your ass?

Bwec said...

Your entire excuse for alienating children from their father is bullshit...try again. You pulled this information out of your ass again.

So you think child support should be enforced but not parental time with the father. Very feminist indeed.

Bwec said...

"As for alimony and custody, alimony is very rarely ever awarded these days."

LOL more bullshit.

Bwec said...

"No. Mothers have custody in 90% of custody cases because these cases are UNCONTESTED."

LOL, More bullshit.

Bwec said...

"the majority of fathers who fight for custody HAVE A HISTORY OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE."

More bullshit.

Bwec said...

"Btw, my own father was an abusive, narcissitic asshole. He pulled a lot of the shit I already discussed."

Ok now I know where you get the bullshit blanket and unfounded statements you made above.

You need to seek some help for this kind of thing.

Anonymous said...

"Our results suggest that conflict with a child’s mother not only directly influences the father’s involvement with the child but also is an important factor in the degree of satisfaction he experiences in his role as a father,” McKenry said.

Part of the problem is that many men have no idea how to be fathers when their children live in another household, McKenry said. “Some men need a wife playing a ‘gatekeeper’ role in their involvement with children,” he said. Others see the role of “father” as defined as a residential parent and simply aren’t sure how the role changes when they no longer live with their children.

“I think it’s clear we really haven’t done a good job in preparing men for the father role,” McKenry said. He would like to see more family life education geared to boys and men to help them learn more about parenthood. He also would like to see more elaborate parent education courses offered during and after divorce to help men learn how to parent on their own."

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/fathinvo.htm

Yep, just proves my original point.

Bwec said...

"help men learn how to parent on their own."

This is misandrist bullshit and a sexist stereotype. It suggests that women are "natural parents" while parenting for men is something that does not come naturally and must be taught to them. Women are no better parents than men.

Anonymous said...

"It suggests that women are "natural parents" while parenting for men is something that does not come naturally and must be taught to them. Women are no better parents than men."

You are an idiot if you can't figure this out. Who the fuck said anything about "natural parents"? The majority of mothers do most of the hands on childcare DURING THE MARRIAGE. In other words, they have an ALREADY ESTABLISHED TRACK RECORD OF CARING FOR THEIR CHILDREN. Plus, as children girls play with dolls and babysit far more than boys. In other words, MOST WOMEN HAVE MORE PRACTICE TAKING CARE OF THEIR OWN CHILDREN MORE THAN MEN. Yes, that makes them the better parent for CUSTODY in most situations. Instead of fighting about parenting with their ex after a divorce, maybe they should find out how and why their ex has developed a certain childcare routine and try to stick to it as much as possible. Children need consistent care. If the fathers would've learned this crap DURING THE MARRIAGE, they wouldn't have as much trouble. After all, mothers shouldn't have to lower their standards of care for fathers who never wanted to learn it. That said, I'm done with this thread. It's like beating a dead horse. I've made my point (and proved it too). It's gets old after a while. Ciao!

Bwec said...

What you saying is that women are better at caring for children and there is no way in hell women are going to let men contribute to more child care or domestic work.

How ironic and fitting of your own arguments that men don't contribute enough to childcare or domestic work. The truth is that women are intimidated by it and find it threatening.

Your fragile female egos are also intimidated by men who earn less than you or are in any way dependent. Now....get back in the house where you say you belong.

Bwec said...

I guess you can stop complaining about the Raw Wage Gap now that women have shown their true colors and refuse to care for stay at home Dads.

What's the matter, don't like a lower earning man?