Skip Navigation
396 comments

  • shcoking, women arent a fan en masse of being 'tradwifes' to tate blowhards

  • I personally don't like how the top left one starts at 2005, unlike every other graph, but they all have the same x scale. (I nitpick things sometimes)

  • its the opposite in my household

    • Does religion play into this?

      In "middle America", it's the church that has usually lured well-meaning women into believing they are under siege, in peril like never before in the history of mankind. Same thing happened to my mother starting in the 70s with snake oil salesmen like Jerry Falwell, Jim Swagart, Jim Bakker and Pat Robertson.

      The non-stop message is that they are always under attack, it's always the end of days, the antichrist is always already among us, The Rapture™️ is just around the corner, and they are the chosen ones... living in constant fear of the fairytale boogeyman and calling it a privilege, their minds have been shackled and atrophied by a state of perpetual red alert that Satan is everywhere, that their loved ones will spend an eternity in hell.

      EDIT: tweaked a sentence for clarity

      • Not really. I am athiest and she has beliefs now but does not got to a church but we both started agnostic. I would say its more youtube (with foxesque influences) and her upbringing (misogynist father although you would think that would have the opposite effect). That combined with the fact she is completely reliant on me due to health issues and honestly the most conservative stuff I have seen come from folks who can't really stand on their own ironically. I think they are looking for it all to be someone else's fault.

    • Lmao same

    1. Looks like I need to move to the UK
    2. So what this is saying is that women are going to save our collective asses.

  • I don't think this is new. The right has always been more masculine and the left more feminine. That's why we need a bit of both.

    • I'm not trying to be mean, but this might be the single dumbest comment I've ever seen.

    • Have you considered that women may lean more left because they are generally more oppressed under the conservative status quo? Women are progressive because they largely need to be.

      No, we don't need a right wing at all. Balance is not a virtue in and of itself, that's like saying we need a balance of fascism and antifascism.

    • What a narrow-minded, moronic thing to say. If this is how you see the world, I pity you and desperately hope you have no influence or power which impacts anyone's life in the real world.

    • "Arbitrary social constructs that have previously existed have previously existed, which is why we should carry them forward."

      Most of the reason people think this is because they don't know history and the periods and cultures where women were badasses prior to patriarchal rewriting of history.

      Cultures like the Minoans where women were paid equal to men for the same work, could divorce on their own, and seemingly felt safe from sexual violence given they walked around in outfits that accentuated their exposed breasts. A culture that had indoor plumbing over a thousand years before the Romans.

      People like Nefertiti, the only woman in the history of Egypt depicted in the smiting pose who upended the entire religion and lines of succession such that there's a pharaoh who follows with the only apparent qualification being that he's married to her firstborn daughter. Had she been successful with the proposed second marriage to the Hittites it would have led to the largest kingdom in the region's history - and without a single battle.

      Or Paduhepa, the "great lady" of the Hittites in the time of Ramses II who was not only conducting diplomatic relations with other countries but was co-signing treaties with her husband.

      Or Deborah (meaning 'bee'), the prophetess and leader of the Israelites early on. Tracing back to a period when the archeology of an apiary in Tel Rehov indicates there was potentially awareness that the hive was ruled by a queen.

      Most people, men included, have a false picture of history as one in which men built great empires that spanned the world. But this ignores survivorship bias and the great filter on our history by patriarchal revision of earlier norms. We only know of all of the above because of relatively recent archeology. Nefertiti was stricken from kept Egyptian history. Deborah precedes Asa deposing his grandmother the "Great Lady" and Josiah's banning of goddess worship. We're only left with the scraps and poorly covered up remnants of greatness for women, while male accomplishments are hyped up or literally stolen - such as Amenhotep II taking credit for an earlier female Pharoh's accomplishments and he and his father trying to erase her from history.

      So we're operating from what's effectively misogynistic propaganda treated as a blueprint carried forward and reinforced in the historical record. It's not "how it's always been" at all. It's just how it's been recorded as having been by one side.

      • I originally wasn't going to respond to this post, but there's so much revisionism, omissions, and outright inaccuracies here that I ultimately couldn't ignore it, and that's just when it comes to the Minoans and Hittites, which I'm most familiar with. As such, I assume your comments about the others are equally one-sided in order to serve the really odd, unnecessary narrative you have going on here.

        First off, we know very little about the Minoans, since, y'know, Linear A hasn't been deciphered yet, but from what we do know, they had an incredibly gender-segregated society, far more than we have today. In lists of family members, for example, the men and the women are in completely separate lists, which would be pretty weird for a place that didn't have "arbitrary social constructs" like gender roles, and women seem to have been forbidden from most traditionally male jobs in their society.

        Their art emphasized sexual dimorphism, and for you to assume that nakedness of the breasts in clothing trends implies the same thing for them that it would in our society today just adds to the evidence that you have no idea what you're talking about.

        They did have indoor plumbing, so at least you're right about that.

        For the Hittites it's even worse, since their code of laws enforced separate punishments for crimes against men and women, with crimes against men carrying much more stringent penalties than crimes against women. Also, Hittite men wielded a large amount of legal power over their wives, which is indicated in their marriage ritual, where the man would "take" his wife so he could "possess" her afterward. Yes, it's better than the ancient Greeks a thousand years later, but by how much is debatable.

        Further, tawananna (queens) only ruled when their kings were away, or after they had died until the next king was chosen, and not a single queen is listed in Hittite histories as a legitimate successor to the dynasty at any point. Their role in court was mostly religious, and while they did conduct diplomatic relations with other countries, to act like Hittite queens were on par with Hittite kings in any way is completely false.

        So we’re operating from what’s effectively misogynistic propaganda treated as a blueprint carried forward and reinforced in the historical record. It’s not “how it’s always been” at all. It’s just how it’s been recorded as having been by one side.

        While there are definitely plenty of excellent examples of strong female leaders throughout history, and their achievements should certainly be celebrated, the ridiculous Bronze Age revisionism you've written here sounds much more like propaganda than what's actually attested in the "historical record".

396 comments