TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
already posted two posts above yours
Cancel culture on YouTube more and more insane:
Basically, DOXXing and personal threats are now legal, so long as leftists do it.
Welp @mrttao is right
already posted two posts above yours
Cancel culture on YouTube more and more insane:
Basically, DOXXing and personal threats are now legal, so long as leftists do it.
The bigger issue is that they actually punished her victimBasically, a slap on the wrist for her given she's a fucking millionaire; a meaningless, forced apology (whether she wrote it personally or not); and YouTube makes off like a bandit by cashing in off her stuff and not actually doing anything, like permanently banning that duplicitous e-whore because she makes them money, despite the fact what she did was illegal and against their very own terms of service.
"One rule for thee, one rule for me, peasants."
I guarantee you that if someone, male or female, turned up outside her home, people and YouTube, for different reasons (simps, cash cows, feminists, et cetera), would flip their shit and create an outrage mob.
Tell me, why are women apparently "oppressed" again?
That too.The bigger issue is that they actually punished her victim
Basically, a slap on the wrist for her given she's a fucking millionaire; a meaningless, forced apology (whether she wrote it personally or not); and YouTube makes off like a bandit by cashing in off her stuff and not actually doing anything, like permanently banning that duplicitous e-whore because she makes them money, despite the fact what she did was illegal and against their very own terms of service.
"One rule for thee, one rule for me, peasants."
I guarantee you that if someone, male or female, turned up outside her home, people and YouTube, for different reasons (simps, cash cows, feminists, et cetera), would flip their shit and create an outrage mob.
Tell me, why are women apparently "oppressed" again?
The bigger issue is that they actually punished her victim
Well,they lost part of their rights which they had in medieval Europe,but the same happened to everybody else except gentry in Poland ,so....Women were never oppressed, at least not in the West. They’ve been handled with kid gloves since antiquity.
And the more I see stuff like this the more I look forward to the backlash.
The gilded cage treatment is still oppression, if primarily "the bigotry of low expectations". Just because you have a load of gibs doesn't entail that you are free (just look at a surprisingly large chunk of Southern lower-class whites during Antebellum slavery), and historically there has been quite the pile of things women ought not do in the West, with varying kinds and levels of enforcement.Women were never oppressed, at least not in the West. They’ve been handled with kid gloves since antiquity.
> merging assets of husband and wife is enslaving women. even though in reality it just lets them spend their husband moneyThe gilded cage treatment is still oppression, if primarily "the bigotry of low expectations". Just because you have a load of gibs doesn't entail that you are free (just look at a surprisingly large chunk of Southern lower-class whites during Antebellum slavery), and historically there has been quite the pile of things women ought not do in the West, with varying kinds and levels of enforcement.
i am not historian,but womans in medieval Europe could be owners of various bussines/for example merchants/,and even blacksmiths,as long as they were good in their trade.> merging assets of husband and wife is enslaving women. even though in reality it just lets them spend their husband money
> having low expectation of someone is oppression
all my keks.
also, please do share with us some of those "enforcements" that forbade women from doing stuff in the west. I mean specific examples not platitudes.
> merging assets of husband and wife is enslaving women. even though in reality it just lets them spend their husband money
> having low expectation of someone is oppression
all my keks.
also, please do share with us some of those "enforcements" that forbade women from doing stuff in the west. I mean specific examples not platitudes.
> later could only be wivesi am not historian,but womans in medieval Europe could be owners of various bussines/for example merchants/,and even blacksmiths,as long as they were good in their trade.
It later changed,and womans gradually could be only wives.
It was illegal to be,let say,blacksmith anymore,so if some try they would be arrested.Not by police thought,it do not existed yet.> later could only be wives
did the police arrest them if they tried to be something else?
or did they choose to be wives because being a housewife is literally the best job ever conceived in human history.
do you have any sources showing it was illegal for a woman to be a blacksmith and she was arrested if she tried?It was illegal to be,let say,blacksmith anymore,so if some try they would be arrested.Not by police thought,it do not existed yet.
Another difference - if rich woman married poor man,she could keep her property in medieval times.In Reneissance and later poor man becomed rich man thanks to wife property.
The problem is that it made what incredibly few divorces were allowed through most of the presence of such vastly messier than they had any reason to be. If the woman (more typically her parents) messed up, recourse was nowhere to be found.> merging assets of husband and wife is enslaving women. even though in reality it just lets them spend their husband money
Take a look at Antebellum Slavery rhetoric. It does not take much for this to turn into "White Man/Husband knows best" gilded cage-isms.> having low expectation of someone is oppression
Section 213 of the Economy Act of 1932. The government's tightening of purse-strings included a clause explicitly requiring that one member of each married couple who both work for the government be fired, with it only not being mandated to be the wife by very narrow margins. This was still the in-practice near-certainty to the point of it being repealed five years layer for this very reason.I mean specific examples not platitudes.
Especially in harsher, more rural, areas, where people did whatever they had to do in order to get by. If you are starving you aren't going to tell your wife she can't get a job. Hard times make people pragmatic. You look at the classified ads of the time, women on the frontier were soliciting for good husbands, sight unseen, because stability and complementarity trump romance.This "women were arrested if they tried to not be housewife" is, as far as I can tell, just revisionist history by feminists.
and that is a good thing.The problem is that it made what incredibly few divorces were allowed
1. 1932 is the modern era. not medieval timesSection 213 of the Economy Act of 1932. The government's tightening of purse-strings included a clause explicitly requiring that one member of each married couple who both work for the government be fired, with it only not being mandated to be the wife by very narrow margins. This was still the in-practice near-certainty to the point of it being repealed five years layer for this very reason.
Realize the strictness was at the point where physical injuries from intensity of intercourse were not grounds to divorce. Hence the shenanigans of Henry the Eighth, who caused a schism for the sole purpose of being able to annul his first marriage over not getting a male heir. It was easier to have his wives executed for treasonous adultery driven in large part by continued absence of a male heir and not quietly drawing back to a submissive role than get annulments accepted by the Pope.and that is a good thing.
divorce is terrible and harms the children immensely for the whims of the parents
frankly, divorce should be classified as child abuse
Note that this is after women's suffrage. Do you seriously think the culture was less restrictive in previous decades?1. 1932 is the modern era. not medieval times
That's ATP's argument, not mine.2. "fired" is not arrested.
Only narrowly left out, due to pressure from relatively-recently voting women.3. explicitly does not specify wife according to you. Just that only 1 person per household can work for the govt directly.
It was introduced intending to be kicking wives out to draw down the budget, then later revised to be de jure sex indiscriminate, then repealed over its de facto sex discrimination despite the late-stage de jure change.4. "work for the govt" specifically which is not "forced to be housewives". They are allowed to start their own business or work for any private organization. they are allowed to work for the govt too. the rule was just "only 1 spouse per household works for govt".
You can't really use the behavior of monarchs as a metric for culture. Monarchs, like celebrities, push the boundaries of polite society to the breaking point in whatever area they find themselves ensnared. Using Henry IIX as a core example is like saying that any random merchant or blacksmith could lop off his wife's head for not producing a son, which simply isn't true. It's not like the formation of the Church of England was a simple and easy process either, it caused centuries of bloodshed.Hence the shenanigans of Henry the Eighth
Hence him being the example? Polite society at the time found incestuous adultery not sufficiently infringing on a marriage to be grounds for divorce, meaning he needed to show a separate scripturally-backed reason for annulment of the marriage he had already passed a death sentence on the other participants of.Monarchs, like celebrities, push the boundaries of polite society to the breaking point in whatever area they find themselves ensnared.
Well, there are two interpretations of that. The first, what most would think, is that the Pope viewed such accusations as fallacious. The second, that "it's only adultery if it's vaginal", was quite a common notion until industrial times. The faster spread of information caused by newspaper and radio made such practices less common and acceptable. I would talk more about that, but it borders on the pornographic, and I can't recall where I read about it so I can't provide sources at the moment.Polite society at the time found incestuous adultery not sufficiently infringing on a marriage to be grounds for divorce