In the past, how did men end up oppressing the majority women in the first place?

Question

Like back in the early 1900's when women were so oppressed that feminism was born. When women couldn't vote or get paid the same as men, and all around didn't have the same rights as men.

Or like in the middle east where it's acceptable in some parts for men to brutally disfigure their wives if they feel they have behaved poorly. Or like in Christianity or Catholism where it has been the rule that only men could be priests. Or some parts of Asia where in the past, it was socially acceptable for families to kill the unborn daughter with beliefs that men are more valuable.

How did women let this happen? I'm sure that at least some of them weren't forced to follow these ways of life. Did some of these women agree with the rules and thats why they did nothing about it?

What I'm getting at is, is it more sound to say that both men AND women caused the problem of oppression of women? Or ( & prepare for the slight sarcasm) were women somehow magically controlled to be oppressed?

Baba-Yaga - Hahaha! Yeah, you are crazy.

Baba Yaga - I eat retarts like you for breakfast. If you really want to challenge your intelligence by going against me, then prepare to feel real stupid.

First, lets begin with the nature of this website. It's called Yahoo Answers, which is use for asking questions, which is exactly what I'm doing. So clearly I'm trying to educate myself. And clearly you haven't been educated enough to understand that this place is actually for asking questions in order to educate yourself, which means your an idiot.

Secondly, I clearly understand that this place isn't the best place to get the best education. However, the question I asked just popped in my mind, & I can't go to a feminist class at this moment, nor do I have the books to read on it at the moment, so I asked here first just to get started on learning something on this topic. Plus I like interacting with people. This should be obvious to a person of normal intelligence, but not you, which again proves your an idiot.

joe bloggs - I want that to be true, but something doesn;t make sense. You say that

"so yes some woman helped the next generation of oppression because they believed it was right."

If that was a huge group of women who were like that (not saying that you said it was a huge group...just thinking) then what about how people speak of female intelligence today. Many people feel that women are more mature than men, learn faster in school than boys, and are much brighter in many ways. How can this be true (or at least believed today) if many women in the past were so easily deceived into believing what ever they were told?

Susan M - That could be true, but at the same time, there's a lot of strong willed women who bully weaker men into oding what they want. Not all women were weak and being bullied. Both men AND women are guilty of bullying, and victims of being bullied.

Gregory L - If thats true, (which is probably is) then it's not "women" in general who have been seen as inferior, it's actually more logical and truthful to say that women from specific cultures were seen as inferior. Whicn mean it's illogiocal for people to believe that "men are the oppressors" when it's actually men from specific cultures who oppress their women.

Baba Yaga - I love how you keep putting your foot in your mouth. Your not even smart enough to point out when someone is using a rhetorical question. You clearly dont know how to read so I'll explain it to you;

I asked, " is it more sound to say that both men AND women caused the problem of oppression of women?" This is a "Question" that I "Asked" bcause I'm seeking answers. If I had already made up my mind, I would have said;

"it IS more sound to say that both men AND women caused the problem of oppression of women?"

This would mean I had made up my own mind, which I clearly didn't. Again, you prove your stupidity flawlessly.

As for your second example, "Uh wrong" thats your argument? What are you, 5 years old? Greg L mentioned:

"Women were not oppressed during the times of Egyptian Culture"

so logically in that culture, gender roles weren't oppressive to women in that culture like it is for American culture. My point was other cultures like thats existed.

Baba Yaga - A clear definition of a Rhetorical Question is: "A question posed without expectation of an answer but merely as a way of making a point:"

Example, “You don't expect me to go along with that crazy scheme, do you?”

Found here:
(http://www.answers.com/topic/rhetorical-question)

I AM expecting an answer with "“is it more sound to say that both men AND women caused the problem of oppression of women?” I want to know from people if this is true or not and why so I can learn more about it.

A clear definition of a Leading Question is: " An unfair question that is designed to guide the respondant.

An example “You were drunk the night of the accident, weren’t you, Mr. Norris?”

Info found here: (http://www.bartleby.com/59/7/leadingquest.html)

This is basically an assumption in a question. I'm not assuming anything nor guiding anyone with my question.

Also, a question can become rhetorical or leading if taken out of context.

Baba Yaga - What you're doing is taking things that I've said out of context, creating your own beliefs on the statement, then illogically arguing against it.

Example: You asked how I knew for a fact that women weren't oppressed in Egyptian culture. When in fact, I stated to Gregory L before saying anything else, "If thats true, (Which it probably is) etc." I didn't say it WAS true, nor did I say I believe or claimed it to be fact. & "Probably" means it most likely can happen. It doesn't mean "it's a fact that it happened".

& your other comment, "What criteria are you using to measure these differences".

Here you assume that by me making that comment to Gregory L means that I also did all sorts of studies on the topic, when I was only speaking theoretically to him personally.

Because you take phrases that people say out of context to create your own ideas as to what you think they're saying to formulate your arguments, debating with you is absurd.

Baba Yaga - Lastly, you say lot to people to "read books". Everyone clearly must read book, however It's even more important to realize not to believe everything you read. Many people do write history and other literature according to what they believe, and not based on facts.

Reading is good, but questioning everything, including yourself, to reach facts and experiencing actual reality to see what actually happens in real life is how you really find truth. And it;s how you learn to read information, and have the ability to seperate the lies you read from the truth.

A lot of people just believe what ever they read as long as it suits their beliefs, just like people do the bible, and thats dangerious.

wendy g - I'm black, I know alot of black history, & to a degree some blacks back then are partly responsible for what happened. It wasn't all just about evil white people beating on the black victims. Black culture had it's own enemies from within.

We're also somewhat responsible for why black culture has it's many serious problems today. Some people still call us victims because of how bad a shape a big part of our culture is in, but they only see us as victims because they don't really know black culture or see what WE see everyday.

I'm black, I live in black culure & see why this is every day, & some other blacks see it too. At some point as black people, playing the victim & taking no responsibility in changing anything becomes ridiculous, & some blacks are aware of this, thats why we're doing things to help our culture.

Point is, it's not always as black & white as, 'this group are the criminals, so that group are the victims'. But some people only see in absolutes.

wendy g - I'm black, I know alot of black history, & to a degree some blacks back then are partly responsible for what happened. It wasn't all just about evil white people beating on the black victims. Black culture had it's own enemies from within.

We're also somewhat responsible for why black culture has it's many serious problems today. Some people still call us victims because of how bad a shape a big part of our culture is in, but they only see us as victims because they don't really know black culture or see what WE see everyday.

I'm black, I live in black culure & see why this is every day, & some other blacks see it too. At some point as black people, playing the victim & taking no responsibility in changing anything becomes ridiculous, & some blacks are aware of this, thats why we're doing things to help our culture.

Point is, it's not always as black & white as, 'this group are the criminals, so that group are the victims'. But some people only see in absolutes.

And Wendy G -What I just stated doesn't mean that I think whites did was good, clearly they were retarted for doing what they did. And it also doesn't mean that I'm using a "blame the oppressed" trick to somehow deflect responsibility.

I'm simply stating that sometimes victims are partly responsible, specifically when your talking about an entire culture were not everyone is clearly good and innocent. If your talking about one person that got raped or shot, they are clearly victims. But when you talk about masses of people, especially depending on who rights the history books, in reality sometimes it's true a group are the victims, but sometimes some people in that group are partly responsible. Those are the people I'm talking about.

You can't always say everyone in a big group are victims. Usually some are victims, and some are not and actually helped the problem get worse. I'm just being realistic. Not everything is absolute.

wendy g - And I was clearly careful when I said to you, "one group as the 'victim', the other as the 'criminals." I was responding to when you said it's a crock to put any blame on blacks group for becoming slaves. It was also a reponse to when you said to put any blame on the oppressed is just a trick to deflect resonsibility.

I do agree with when you say both men AND women perpetuate oppression. This is what my overall question was about.

However, when you say "These women, just like some black slaves, BOUGHT INTO the system (as someone else pointed out)...and who can blame them, really?" I disagree with.

If you say this to be true, then you must apply that idea to every situation to see if it's really true, or just bias and only true when you want it to be. For example: This is just like saying a 40 year old KKK member can't be blamed for being so evil because he/she was raised to be that way, so how can you blame them?

Let me explain further......

wendy g - Before I explain further: I have to say before anyone gets fired up for me comparing oppressed women with the KKK, as I said, you have to use that same logic for all situations to see if it's true, or bias. I think that is how one is truely fair & unbaised without the emotional (for example 'how dare you compare this to the KKK' bias). And remember, I'm a black guy. Ofcourse I disagree with the KKK.

On to my point about the oppressed sometimes being partly responsible: One is a victim when they are harmed in some way without being aware of their situation, & is powerless to it.

However, once the victim is fully aware & also has some power to do something about it, they have a choice. If they choose to do nothing & let their own abuse happen, they become apart of the problem. They become their own worst enemy, & the criminals continue to keep them oppressed.

and so.........

wendy g - And so......like the KKK person, he/she could have loved playing with all people when young, but then trained by family to hate, which their oppression of their minds begin without even knowing.

Definition of Oppress "To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority".

A child who once saw no color, becomes kept down by the severe unjust force of authority by his/her family (or KKK culture) to see and judge people of color as less than human, constantly living in hate, which oppresses the soul.

At some point when they grow up, some of them become aware of their situation, and have a choice...either continue the lifestyle, or change. But change is more difficult. It's easier to continue to live the way he or she was taught instead of living the way they feel is right.

This person then becomes the oppressor of those that he/she hates, and the children that he or she teaches.

This is the same for women brought into a system of oppression...........

......This is the same for women or anyone for that matter who are brought into a system of oppression. At first, you're innocent to what's happening to you. How can you blame the victim if they're unaware of the problem? Later, some become aware, but unfortunately remain completely powerless to do anything about it. My heart goes out to them.

Many will become both aware & have at least some power to do something about it. Some of those people do right by fighting against oppression.

But some decide to choose the less difficult route by staying oppressed, and even complain about it, or become bitter and completetly resentful. (fall to the darkside of the force if you will)Some think they're fighting oppresion when they're really only adding to it. These folks are the oppressed who (unknowingly or unknowingly) continues the oppression overall.

Everyone is brought into some systematic form of oppression. Because I know this, I can sympathize with anyone no matter who you are.

wendy g - that last above response was for you, I just forgot to begin it with your name.

Wendy g - And I meant to say (KNOWINGLY, or unknowingly) Sorry :)

wendy g - Simply because KKK members had more privileges/choices, doesn't mean they weren't truly opressed.

If a KKK member were to leave the group to do what he/she felt was right by helping blacks, that member would be outcasted, then treated almost as badly as blacks. Some where even killed for being what the Klan called a "N*gger lover". That fear kept many members who had ideas of being free of the hate & emotional inner turmoil, forced to stay in the Klan. That is opression.

Also, to say this never happened, or didn't happen much to have meaning to this conversation, is to say they weren't human. Some people do the right thing even at the expense of their privileges.

This is why you can definitly compare KKK with Slaves & Womens oppression. It doesn't matter how more opressed one group is over the other. Opression is opression, even if the KKK clearly had more privileges, that doesn't mean some didn't, or at least tried, to give it up to do right, out of great guilt.

Answer 1

First, let me say that what you are saying can be compared to saying "How did Africans ALLOW themselves to become slaves? Didn't some African tribes capture and sell their own? Didn't some slaves stay with their white owners even after they were freed? Doesn't that mean that they ACCEPTED it, and were also responsible?" Well, that's a crock. To blame the oppressed for their oppression is the oldest trick in the book to be able to deflect responsibility. Now let me clear something up. What needs to be understood is how a "social system" (in this case, patriarchy and paternalism) works. No one thinks that today, and for centuries...millennia even, that men have been (ostensibly) going off to "work"...say, every third Tuesday of every month, and have been instead holding secret meetings (with a secretary, treasurer and all) on how to "oppress" women. The social system works like a machine, (and it has been "working" for quite some time) and both men and women are caught up in it...moving along, unquestioning, accepting the status quo (for the most part). Indeed, both sexes perpetuated it, but again, to blame women for their own oppression is GROSSLY unfair, for what other choice did they have? Become a social outcast, and (depending on the time and place), labeled a "witch" (and we know what happened to them), stoned, or left to fend for themselves in a culture that did not ALLOW them to "fend for themselves?" Relax, most feminists understand that it is (and was) the social system at work, that almost imperceptible juggernaut, and not YOU, or my husband, or my father, or your mom's dad, that oppresses women. I don't think it's a coincidence that oppressed minorities began to "awaken" from the poisonous sleep that paternalism/patriarchy had us under at about the same time...it was a movement whose time had come. Some people don't like the change...they are vaguely aware that they may be losing a "place of privilege", but what they aren't aware of is that they, too, benefit, ultimately, from it's removal. The story of how it actually began is quite long, I could write a book (and many have-"The Chalice and the Blade" by Riane Eisler is a good start if you want to read about it. Again, relax, it doesn't blame you for anything) but I think the heart of your question is about the male/female dynamic, and about guilt and responsibility. Men should not feel guilty, but they should understand that the purpose of the feminist movement is to REMOVE men from their "responsibility" (paternalism), so that we can coexist in true equality.

EDIT--Yevon, make sure you read carefully what I said...I did NOT assert "one group as the 'victim', the other as the 'criminals.'" I stated that the social system worked "independently" one could say, BOTH sexes are "caught up" in it. Yes, men perpetuate it, as evidenced by all of the bitter, "women need to stay in their place" attacks we see from men on here. But it is also true that women perpetuate it. I could go into detail with examples such as Chinese foot binding, Female Genital Mutilation in some cultures, etc...but that would take A LOT of time (just like explaining how patriarchy came into being would take too much time). These women, just like some black slaves, BOUGHT INTO the system (as someone else pointed out)...and who can blame them, really? EVERYTHING about their world told them that it was right, and just even. Often some slaves were given the role of "overseer" and punished and whipped other slaves. Does that mean that they were any less victims than their brutalized brothers? In my opinion, they are the most tragic victims of all, becaue they were so brain-washed, that they bought into this evil, and perpetuated it themselves. The same is true for women. In many cultures, today, and throughout history, in order to make their daughters "marriageable," they subject them to unspeakable tourtures, maiming and hobbling them for life in the example of Chinese foot binding, for instance. So were women part of the problem? Without a doubt. Were they as culpable because of their oppressed status, lack of alternatives, and "learned helplessness"...I'll leave that for you to ponder.

EDIT--Robinson-You have some knowledge of history, and that's great, but your assumptions as to how the patriarchial social structure came into being are just that, assumptions. A general knowledge of history may lead one to speculate about how it all happened, but until you've read SEVERAL authoritative scholars on the subject (and believe me, there are MORE than enough out there), and backed up your opinion with hard evidence and facts, your opinion is nothing but (rather baseless) speculation. Your entitled to it, but it's hard to defend in a truly informed, intelligent discussion.

EDIT--"Many will become aware and have at least some power..." THAT is the crux of the matter here. "KKK" members, while brought into the brain washing system from birth, also inherit a place of privilage when they grow up. Thus, they have access to "choice" when they grow up, truly oppressed people will never have the choice. Slaves for example, in order to subvert the system, could "choose" to run away, choose to secretly learn to read and write, choose to encourage their fellow slaves...all at the risk of extreme persecution (cutting off limbs) and death. Not much of a "choice" is it? Where is their "power"? They are devoid of power, and risk losing what little (false) sense of power they may have gained when they no longer conform. Certainly not to be compared to a child who grew up in the KKK, who can choose to leave, but he leaves one place of privilage for another, and doesn't have an entire social system that says that his "leaving" is wrong, because he is property and he has no right to personal freedom, or even the right to prevent himself from being harmed. It is the "place of privilage" that makes the difference. Again, in the example of the KKK, he leaves, only to enter ANOTHER (not so extreme) social system that still puts him in a position of power, the slaves rejects that system only at extreme risk. As for those that "accepted" it, or even tried to use it to an advantage, there are several psychological and sociological theories that describe why this might occur, "Stockholm Syndrome" and "learned helplessness" being two of them (the latter is particularly pertinent to the black experience, but it's too much to go into now...look it up though, it's very interesting.) And let's not forget "survival instinct." When faced with "choices" that are hardly choices at all (conform or die) VERY few will choose to risk death. Not only is it harder because they have to actually OVERCOME the brainwashing they've been subjected to, (rare enough in itself) but they have to overcome their innate desire for self preservation. This works for women, too, depending on the time and place. When social strictures are "looser" (which occured at various times throughout history, to one degree or another) there was more "freedom of movement" for women, at other times, they could be killed (branded as a "witch" etc.) for not conforming. The point is, that women and other oppressed groups DID NOT have the choices that, say, a KKK member would have, the ENTIRE social system told them that they were "criminals" (in the case of slaves) if they didn't conform, and "social outcasts" (at best, "in league with the devil" at worst) in the case of women. I really think you can't compare the two, because slaves, and women HAD NO POWER, regardless of the choices they made.

EDIT-Yes, in the case of slaves, (just as in the case of women) there were exceptions, I never "assumed" there weren't, Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, etc. And then there were the slaves (it is generally believed that there were quite a few) who never managed to escape, but were subversive in other ways. Secretly learning to read, and teaching others, slaves who were close to their masters (such as the house slaves), learning manipulate them in various ways, for better treatment, to keep their families together, etc. But remember, exceptions make the rule. And it's hardly fair to compare every slave to them and say "See? So why couldn't ALL slaves do that?" And, really, I mean no offense, but I think you're missing the point with the KKK thing. With KKK members, you are talking about a microcosm of society, and a subculture that is not looked too favorably on, at that,. Those that choose to leave can leave for the LARGER society, where they can still be accepted, (given that they're not too vocal about their past) and still have the rights and privilages given strictly for the color of their skin and sex. Slaves, AND women, could not "leave" for another "social system" where they could be accepted, your Frederick Douglas' aside. Certainly you don't blame all of the OTHER slaves, who did not manage to escape, for not achieving what the few exceptions did. And no, the plight of women and slaves are not perfect parallels, but the "KKK" member, for whom any adult member I have NO (and I repeat...NO) "sympathy" for, if they chose to stay, and embrace the bigotry and hatred of their people. Those people HAD A CHOICE. Again, you cannot argue that an adult KKK member "had little choice" when compared to slaves OR women. The comparison simply cannot be made. It may be brain washing, but I don't believe it's oppression, CERTAINLY not in the same sense of "oppression" as experienced by black people and women at various times in western society. You're actually talking about the difference between the oppressors and the oppressed. Should we say that Hitler's SS murderers should be compared to slaves and similarily oppressed groups? The case could be made (at the cost of reason and logic) that they were victims of the political climate, and were simply following orders, but they chose (again, note they DID have a choice--they could have refused to participate) to commit evil. You can't compare people who choose evil with people who are victims of it, and had little or no choice in the first place.

EDIT-MY point, (which has sort of been lost in the "KKK analogy) is that, ultimately, neither men nor women were resposible. However the systematic oppression may have started, (and I have read up on this and have my own ideas), once started, men AND women were victims of it, to different degrees, and in different ways. Men, of course, had the rights and privilages, while women had few to none, but both were "slaves" to the social system...of course, many men, the majority even, were not entitled to the same rights and privilages as others, depending on the time and place (that goes for white and black men but thats another didcussion. The point is, everyon was a part of the social system, and they could not "escape" it. As I've said, very often, women perpetuated it, just as men did, BUT I still distinguish between those that had the rights, and those that had none, i.e. the TRULY oppressed. The system is truly self-perpetuating. The point is not to BLAME men, OR women, but to recognize the power of a social system to "brain wash" ALL of it's members, and to recognize the importance of correcting a system that denies the basic human rights of an entire group of people.

Answer 2

Er... a few of you are missing the point of the post.

Yu Yevon isn't talking about the 1900s, the 1000s, or even 0 A.D. (Or C.E. if you really can't stand the notation); he's talking about when humanity first relegated itself into civilizations.

How the hell did women allow themselves, in almost all cultures across the world, to become so "subservient" and "oppressed?"

The question certainly takes some thought. It can't accurately be explained away by saying that men were stronger than women, because a sly woman could always kill off a man in his sleep or the like.

My assumption is (and this appears to be backed up by some historical data...) that some group (probably men AND women) initially claimed divinity or a connection with the gods/goddesses. How that happened I don't know. Maybe somebody said "so and so will happen on such and such a day" and were thenceforth worshiped as divine. In any event, a religious upper caste was probably the original class of oppressors (you see it in Mesopotamia, the so-called "Cradle of Civilization," so it must have some credence.

My overall opinion is that men may possibly have been more ruthless and eventually delegated women to certain roles. OR, more likely, both sexes may have had traditional preconceptions about roles and willfully divided themselves into certain behaviors and activities; it is possible that different branches of thought took it from there.

Oh, and Baba Yaga; calm down. No reason to be hating. Read the question and answer it; otherwise, you can relegate yourself to trolling on some other threads. Yevon is obviously educated and obviously seeking an intelligent debate, not some pseudo-intellectual bashing and replies to "read a book."

This doesn't answer the question, but it IS food for thought:

There have been a few matriarchal societies throughout history in Africa, Asia, and possibly elsewhere. Why were these societies so uncommon, why were they so primitive and undeveloped in relation to technology and literature, and why did they not become the standard of present day society?

Answer 3

I think a better question would be "When did humans start oppressing each other?"

Men have better pretty nasty to other men, too. Let's not forget that pretty much throughout history women victims of everything from Roman occupations to bombing raids have been considered "innocent civilians," while soldiers were somehow dehumanized and considered expendable, and entire generations of young men have been decimated in conflicts they had no part in initiating.

A high school kid (at least in my day) kicking the crap out of a male weakling was considered pretty much normal teen behavior, even amusing, while slapping his girlfriend was considered inexcusable in just about any circumstance.

Truth is, the strong tend to victimize the weak. And men have done this no more - and probably less, given the obvious opportunities - to women than they have to men.

As usual, I could go on and on. But I hope most of you get the idea.

Anyway, congrats on having the most long-winded question and load of details since the last senate filibuster. Too bad I already gave away this month's catcher's mitt.

Answer 4

I think it is more true to say all of society oppressed women including the women themselves because they knew nothing else. And women were still earning less pay for doing the same job as men up until the 1960s(?) Lots of people had horrible lives in the past, when you have to spend 12 hours a day digging ditches for a pittance or giving birth to 15 children the last thing you gave a rat's about is voting for women's rights.

Answer 5

I can't blame the victim very much according to your guidelines. I certainly blame mislead feminism and women behaving badly for things since the 70's, but not much before that. If a group isn't allowed to vote, own property, have as much ability to work, and has unwritten expectations to live with abuse...., there's going to be a pattern of bullying and victimization that will have people (women in this case) behaving differently than they would if they were raised in a more just society. I suggest studying how the oppression of women is different than the oppression of minorities, gays, and the handicapped. There you might find some interesting things.

Answer 6

Because women leach off of and use men and are never happy with what they themselves have.

Figure, women always want the easy way out, so they avoid going to wars with the men, going hunting, doing all the tough stuff.

Then the women get jealous of what the men have, the camradery, the adventure, so they attack that social convention which they originally agreed to with the men.

Remember also women control the home and decide which guy gets to reproduce, which guy gets loved, which guy gets to have a life basically. So men are not really in charge like women claim. In the important things in life- love, sex, reproduction- it is the WOMEN who rule, not the men. After all, most men are not president or CEO, but underlings- underlings who are easily manipulated by women to DO THE WOMEN'S BIDDING.

After all, what has change in the past century that women suddenly have all the access to society that men have? Have the men all become pusses this past century? of course not.

It is all about how women manipulate men. Men only WISH they had such power over women.

Answer 7

the answer to this is not a simple yes no answer, not all woman in the situations you are talking about are oppressed just because the catholic church does not allow women to become priests does not mean woman were oppressed, besides that is why in the protestant part of Christianity you can be the head of the church and be female. But in all situations when a person is oppressed they start to believe the information they are being given and then supply this information onto the next generation this can be proved by psychology reports on abuse the person who is abused sometimes goes on to abuse another or allow another to be abused because of the information which was programmed into them. so yes some woman helped the next generation of oppression because they believed it was right. but some woman fought against it other wise we would not be here today.

Answer 8

It is sheer brutality, the strongest terrifying the weaker ones. It is easy to bully women, especially when they have young children to protect. Some things do not change, no matter how you wish they would.

The early US suffragettes had a choice to be made about how to improve the lives of women:
1. Gain the right to vote
2. Prohibition: Prevent men from drinking away their money which caused financial hardship to the family, and keep them from coming home drunk and mean and beating their dependents

Both goals were achieved by 1930. Only voting gave women the rights they sought.
Now we can own property, work and divorce.

Answer 9

Women were not oppressed during the times of Egyptian Culture. Today's religions hide the fact that God was originally thought to be a woman (aka: goddess). Somewhere around the time that Judaism got its start, God's gender was changed to a man. The followers are always subservient and do what they are told. Since then, women have been treated as inferiors.

Answer 10

People only oppress threats. If women were inconsequential they would be ignored. The opposite happened so I can only conclude we were a threat.

The truth is women have a power over men. Men want to be loved bo a woman but a womans heart can not be tied to ne man. It may be at one point in time but women ALWAYS change. We can't be certain the same man will be adequate tomorow even if he is today. So men oppress us to avoid the pain of knowing we will change and our loyalties never remain true.

Answer 11

The problem began farther back than 1900s or middle ages; it stems from prehistoric times. Probably the main cause is that women were the ones who had the children. Women couldn't join the hunt if they were pregnant or if they had to stay in the cave to watch the children. It probably snowballed from there.