If you could have women behave like pre-women's lib again, would you?

[LonesomeLoser]

I read somewhere, maybe here, that women are too emotional and irrational to handle responsibly the freedoms the women's lib movement has given them. And that they need men to keep them in check, so to speak. I didn't live in that period, but I can imagine that it was also much easier for men when women had fewer options. Women were supposed to care about 2 things: getting married and having kids.

They weren't even supposed to enjoy sex, and if they did they were considered wh0res. They were supposed to have sex only to make their husbands happy and because they wanted to be mothers, not for any pleasure they got out of it.

So it was much nicer for guys I imagine because there was no incentive to please the women, the wives spread their legs for them because it was expected of them. So I assume the guy could just get on top of the woman and have intercourse until he climaxed, roll over and go to sleep with no concern over whether she liked it at all.

Also, women I imagine were more desperate to get married then than they are today because like I said they had much fewer options. If they didn't marry by a certain age society looked down its nose at them. Society cared much less in general if women were happy in their marriages, they were supposed to shut up and do what they were told. So a fat, lazy, antisocial, passive, apathetic toward life in general guy like me, would have a better chance of getting a woman of quality looks than I do today, at least a HB7+, because just by having a job and a car I was as good as any other potential husband, for her to fulfill her duty of getting married and having kids.


One drawback for me would be that back then women who were considered worth having were all wholesome and conservative dressing and whatnot. And I've always been more attracted to women who speak their minds and have an edge to them, but thats probably because I've always been a bit on the timid side and very passive so I'm attracted to what I'm not. But that would be a small price to pay to be able to get a woman of quality looks with much less effort than it would take me today (if I ever decide to put in the effort) because much less would be expected of me from women because they had much fewer options.

So definitely if I could make women behave like pre-women's lib days, I would. Anyone else?

 

[WC2]

For every 10 *****s out there, there is a candid woman who will live a faithful life (as long as their man isn't a chump). The only reason I could imagine to go back to pre-women's lib is to stop women from walking all over chumps. On the other hand, men who know this are getting more ***** than ever. Women are no longer afraid to tell people they like sex, and to me this is a good thing.

To the average guy who throws a woman up on a pedastal, it's obviously a bad thing. They will fall in love with these women just to be walked on over and over. And to the men who know what they're doing, they know that these women who take women's lib to an extreme, are not material long term.

 

[Schadenfreudianslip]

Actually, I wouldn't go that far back to the time before women's lib. I'd go back to the times when women's lib actually meant something, like the right to vote, the right to earn high level jobs, and the right to control one's fertility. I have a very hard time taking modern feminism seriously, just like I have a hard time taking Al Sharpton'movement seriously. I look back on the days of Susan B. Anthony and then look at today, where women demand equal rights yet think that they shouldn't be arrested for slapping men. I'm female, and I think that too many females have gained equal rights but haven't caught on to equal responsibility. It's not just limited to women. Look at other groups of people who were oppressed in the past but milk it for all it's worth and demand special treatment rather than take equal responsibility. I assure you that there are plenty of women out there who have the capacity for reasoning. However, this is a taught behavior. For example, boys are punished for hitting girls and thus are taught from a young age to be responsible and accountable for their actions, yet it is considered funny when a girl hits a boy. Anybody, male or female, who is allowed to take actions without consequences is going to be a spoiled rampant brat. Just look at today's results of permissive parenting. Also, the glass ceiling is often created by themselves (i.e. being catty and cliquish in the workplace rather than being career-minded, deciding to have kids without conferring with her partner how the family/career situation is going to work out), and if I could go back in time, I'd stress the whole responsibility facet of equal rights.

Also, subservient women may seem like the proverbial greener grass on the other side, but don't think for one second that it is easy. I have friends from foreign countries where women's lib is nonexistent, and they say that although the females are more obedient, the downside is that they're as dumb as domestic animals. They're taught from the beginning to let men make all the decisions, and thus their mental maturity peaks at about age 12. This means having to daddy them your whole life. As tempting as it is to not have to deal with obnoxiously "liberated (translation: princess-y)" women, how would it be to be on the opposite end of the continuum, where you'd worry if your wife could manage things while you were gone, or if you had to hire someone to take care of affairs because women weren't allowed to manage money or businesses. In either situation (being a princess or a subservient), no responsibility is taken. However, liberated women with the right upbringing have the capacity and opportunity to learn responsibility and logic, whereas cloistered women never get the same chance.

 

[Schadenfreudianslip]

Addendum:

Although the western world never deprived women of rights as much as the Muslim world, here's some perspective of a man who has had experience with nonliberated women and the extreme responsibilities that it entails:

First off, having to supervise your wife like a child is a horrible PITA, which was quite the rude awakening for me. It ain't a power trip; it's a goddamn burden that hangs on your shoulders until you lower that ditzy sack of estrogen in the ground. You can't shirk it either, even if you want to be a feminist. These girls lead very sheltered lives, know nothing of the world, have no concept of responsibility (because their decisions are always made for them) and their level of mental maturity peaks at about age 13. When they are maltreated it is less often out of cruelty than frustration with their irrational nature.

As I see it the women are raised from birth to be totally dependant on male guidance, protection, etc., so when they reach physicial adulthood their minds are stuck in that state forever.

Being a husband to such a woman is too close to being a surrogate father for most Westerners to stomach. If you tried to handle her like a Western wife and not try to exert any authority over her, you would find her acting not like a wife but a foster daughter--a foster daughter with a loony-liberal dad who lets her do whatever she wants. It wouldn't be in her interest, even though she'd think it hella cool at first, and in the end she wouldn't love you but despise you.

Why are they such a nuisance to shepherd? Let's say you're a teen boy and you're firing up the X-box when Mom calls. "Your sisters need their hair cut." or "Your sisters need to go shopping." So rather than scoring frags you're smoking cigarettes in the bazaar and trying to look dignified and unassociated with the 2 or 3 chicks in abeyas who are eeping and gabbling and taking their sweet time in the stall next to you. Starting in adolescence this is everyday shiat. I can't speak of Egypt, but if you look around town in Pakistan you'll see at any given time a big fraction of the male population are tied down transporting women. They're never grateful either--it's your job.

As to the way in which they are irrational and immature, I don't want to paint with a wide brush so I'll use my own wife as an example and say she's a common type. She does not know how to shop on her own. She has to be supervised. If you just give her the cash and cut her loose, she'll get cheated, or buy shoes that don't fit her, or blow most of the grocery money on chocolates (yes, all of these happened.) If you catch her doing something wrong she'll make up transparent lies of the my-dog-ate-my-homework level of sophistication. If you try to reason with her she'll pout and ball up her little fisties and glare at the floor because she's not getting her way. I could go on, but this should give you a taste.

It's a trade-off: the Western girl is low-maintenance and a better chess opponent, but if she's got a law degree she's not going to pick up after you, scrub the toilet, fetch your food & drink, and give up sex on demand. The Punjabi girl (and I guess her Arab cousin) provides all of these domestic comforts and more, but you have to pay a heavy toll in patience, tears, and treasure.

LL, you're looking at this from the perspective that things would be easier for you. You are very, very mistaken. With great power and authority come great responsibility. You admit that you have a timid, passive nature. You wouldn't be much for keeping a women, as kept women must continue to be kept in line. You'd also have to worry about looking like a p*ssy, as society would expect you to keep your wife. You know how everyone rolls their eyes at women whose kids are throwing temper tantrums in the supermarket? I could go on and on, but I'll just leave it that your fantasies are very shortsighted and that judging from your post, you're as irresponsible as the women you deem princesses because you too want all the perceived low-maintenance of kept women without the responsibility of actually keeping them. I'm not going on a "that's sexist" tirade, by the way. I'm pointing out that all that glitters is not gold, and that you have some of the characteristics of the women who you don't like.

 

[Poonani Maker]

I go to an ultra conservative church. All the wives their mostly are like stepford wives. If I Really wanted to, I could marry one who is Soo subservient, and would please me sexually as I'd be head of the household. Marriage scares the **** outta me though, because if you mess up with one it could Really cost you/make you older/worn out/jaded. The younger ones freak me out because you never know how they'll turn out. I will be seeing a few tomorrow. I'm usually a good judge of character.

 

[Evzone]

I'm not sure if theres a misconception, but all the people I talk to, who were born in countries in the middle east, say there really is no problem with women.

Well it depends on the country. Saudi Arabia is by far the most restrictive where women aren't allowed to drive cars and can't be out in public with a male who isn't a relative or their husband, or they get in trouble with the Religious Police (except on the Saudi Aramco Oil housing compounds for western workers). Turkey, on the other hand, is majority Muslim but basically a western country as far as civil rights go. Other places, it depends--not always what's in the laws but also very strong social codes that you just don't see in the west.

Back to topic: I've heard some girls straight up tell me "I'm definitely not a feminist." I've heard some girls say "I definitely wouldn't put a career ahead of having a family." If you really want a girl like that, they're out there, even in the present day western world.