- Joined
- Jul 12, 2020
- Messages
- 319
YASS QUEENS
The Soulless Duchess - Vol. 2 Ch. 55
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Double-page supporter
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2019
- Messages
- 556
the power this chapter hold, priceless
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2020
- Messages
- 14
@Ant1989. Men still dominate society. The principle of feminism is equality, the wish for the same pay, chances and respect for women and men. It blows my mind that this simple wish, that you and i are treated equally, is problematic for some people. And its still rampant. Anyone remember the scandal in japan, where universities deliberatly downgraded female students who wanted to become doctors? In this manga the king doen‘t even consider his daughter as a possible ruler or a person with their own agenda, but only as a dependent, whom has to be provided for by a husband.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2018
- Messages
- 5,266
@Ant1989 @mahtan No group in history has ever dominated society for the benefit of some other group. Nobles didn't dominate society for the benefit of peasants, theocratic priests didn't dominate society for the benefit of the worshippers, and corporate bigwigs don't dominate society for the benefit of all the little people on minimum wage. That's not how it works.
It was not so long ago that it was legal for husbands to beat their wives with sticks. In Canada, we honour a group of women who successfully fought, in the 20th century, for the law to deem women "persons"; it took years and they had to fight all the way to the Privy Council in Britain, but in 1929 they made it. In India it still seems to be effectively legal for men to burn their wives alive or splash them with acid.
So @mahtan, tell me about how often it's been the case that women were allowed to beat their husbands, or men were not deemed "persons" before the law. Tell me about times and places where women have made more than men in the same job. Tell me about the history of "wizard burnings", where midwives successfully mounted campaigns to have male doctors vilified as satanic to get rid of the competition--oh, hang on, no that was witch burnings and it was the other way around. Tell me about how women aren't doctors because that's just not how their minds work--oh wait, the barriers got removed and suddenly half the women are doctors, when before they'd been systematically stopped and men pretended it was because they couldn't do it. Tell me about all the single fathers in poverty because women can get away with skipping out on supporting the kids. Tell me about all the two-job couples where the men do all the housework.
And by the way @Ant1989 your history is ass backwards. Queens in their own right were rare partly for the precise reason that in nearly all societies, when the queen got married the dude she married became the king and she stopped having any authority, blood or no blood. That's why, for instance, Queen Elizabeth the 1st never married. And the nobles were always on her case to marry, in part for the exact reason that they thought it was a terrible thing for a woman to be in charge (partly of course cuz they wanted an heir). This is known; nobody pretended in the old days so there is no controversy here, your impression is just false. The other part of why there were few ruling queens is that queens only got to be the boss if they had no brothers (and even there, sometimes it would go to an uncle or something). Consider that in all of English history post-Roman occupation, there have been, let's see . . . four and a half ruling queens, some of them for only part of the time. Bloody Mary, Elizabeth I, the Mary from "William and Mary" (she's the half), Victoria (because her husband died and she didn't remarry), and our current queen (but in the old days she wouldn't have been, because she's married). That's out of dozens of kings. It never happened much. And at that, I get the impression it was less uncommon in England than most places. The Scots had what, one intermittently ruling queen?
I almost dislike honest male chauvinists less than the type who want to have their cake and eat it too by taking all the benefits and then pretending to be victims so they don't have to admit to themselves that they have advantages. That's such a morally weak, whiney, hypocritical approach.
It was not so long ago that it was legal for husbands to beat their wives with sticks. In Canada, we honour a group of women who successfully fought, in the 20th century, for the law to deem women "persons"; it took years and they had to fight all the way to the Privy Council in Britain, but in 1929 they made it. In India it still seems to be effectively legal for men to burn their wives alive or splash them with acid.
So @mahtan, tell me about how often it's been the case that women were allowed to beat their husbands, or men were not deemed "persons" before the law. Tell me about times and places where women have made more than men in the same job. Tell me about the history of "wizard burnings", where midwives successfully mounted campaigns to have male doctors vilified as satanic to get rid of the competition--oh, hang on, no that was witch burnings and it was the other way around. Tell me about how women aren't doctors because that's just not how their minds work--oh wait, the barriers got removed and suddenly half the women are doctors, when before they'd been systematically stopped and men pretended it was because they couldn't do it. Tell me about all the single fathers in poverty because women can get away with skipping out on supporting the kids. Tell me about all the two-job couples where the men do all the housework.
And by the way @Ant1989 your history is ass backwards. Queens in their own right were rare partly for the precise reason that in nearly all societies, when the queen got married the dude she married became the king and she stopped having any authority, blood or no blood. That's why, for instance, Queen Elizabeth the 1st never married. And the nobles were always on her case to marry, in part for the exact reason that they thought it was a terrible thing for a woman to be in charge (partly of course cuz they wanted an heir). This is known; nobody pretended in the old days so there is no controversy here, your impression is just false. The other part of why there were few ruling queens is that queens only got to be the boss if they had no brothers (and even there, sometimes it would go to an uncle or something). Consider that in all of English history post-Roman occupation, there have been, let's see . . . four and a half ruling queens, some of them for only part of the time. Bloody Mary, Elizabeth I, the Mary from "William and Mary" (she's the half), Victoria (because her husband died and she didn't remarry), and our current queen (but in the old days she wouldn't have been, because she's married). That's out of dozens of kings. It never happened much. And at that, I get the impression it was less uncommon in England than most places. The Scots had what, one intermittently ruling queen?
I almost dislike honest male chauvinists less than the type who want to have their cake and eat it too by taking all the benefits and then pretending to be victims so they don't have to admit to themselves that they have advantages. That's such a morally weak, whiney, hypocritical approach.
@Purplelibraryguy
Today
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-01/male-victims-of-domestic-violence-shame-stigma-support/12495738?nw=0
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-47252756
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-54237409
https://www.gob.mx/imjuve/articulos/violencia-contra-hombres-una-violencia-mas-silenciosa?idiom=es
http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/dpp/v6n2/v6n2a10.pdf
Some countries like mine (México) explicitly exclude any male from being recognized as victim of domestic violence. In all countries males have little to none legal help when they are being victimized and they are automatically considered guilty if the abusive wife/girlfriend/mother/anything counter demands.
Today
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-01/male-victims-of-domestic-violence-shame-stigma-support/12495738?nw=0
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-47252756
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-54237409
https://www.gob.mx/imjuve/articulos/violencia-contra-hombres-una-violencia-mas-silenciosa?idiom=es
http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/dpp/v6n2/v6n2a10.pdf
Some countries like mine (México) explicitly exclude any male from being recognized as victim of domestic violence. In all countries males have little to none legal help when they are being victimized and they are automatically considered guilty if the abusive wife/girlfriend/mother/anything counter demands.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2020
- Messages
- 192
@Schnitzelchen if you ask any anti-feminist if they are in favor of equal pay and equal rights, they will say: "YES", their problem is what feminism does, and not what it claims it does (kinda like socialism). Japan, isn't The WEST, as the Middle East isn't either. In those cases, tradition and religion still rule the nation, even so, Japan is very progressive these days compared to the past, you still may see things like that, but they are illegal and nobody says it's a good thing. The Middle East is where feminism should focus, but recently they are glorifying Islan (for some reason), and focussing every attention is the First World Problems in the west (you know, complaining that men sit with opened legs or that action video games are oriented to men unable to understand what Target Audience means), and spreading lies like the Pay Gap (no, I won't explain why it's a lie, just google it and I'm sure you gonna find far better people to explain it to you, even a feminist like Christina Hoff Sommers). If you really think that the world is ruled by men, research what laws in your country give rights to men that don't the same to women and vice versa.
@Purplelibraryguy Are you saying that men kept women in cages and forced them to work to death as the Roman did with their slaves? Are you really saying that the code of chivalry never existed? That when a man got money his family wasn't benefited? Women aren't another group, put this in your feminist minds. All societies always protected women, maybe too much, since to get the power you need to earn it (such as doing hard jobs or fighting wars), and as I said, even today they don't want to do that. About the queens, well, to be a ruler you have to play the game, you kill potential enemies, have to consolidate your power, form alliances, things like that. And those queens did that. Cleopatra killed every single brother and sister to be sure she would stay on the throne (after a little incest, of course) and even seduced two enemy commanders. What I'm trying to say, is that isn't easy to be a ruler. So yeah, when women had that chance, it was safer to not try. They could still live a luxurious life in a safe way, that's why not many tried. And the pressure for marriage, that goes for kings too, because rulers need heirs. Let's make something clear, there are differences between men and women, and among them is the disposition to take risks, Men are more likely to take risks than women, period. And while sometimes it pays off very big, sometimes it ruins them. Feminism loves to point out that most CEOs are men, yes, and most homeless people too.
Long story short, I still think the problem wasn't (and isn't ) society, but women not willing to take risks or do hard jobs (in the past, now, I don't actually see any problem at all, whatever you want to be, compete honestly and you can do it).
@Purplelibraryguy Are you saying that men kept women in cages and forced them to work to death as the Roman did with their slaves? Are you really saying that the code of chivalry never existed? That when a man got money his family wasn't benefited? Women aren't another group, put this in your feminist minds. All societies always protected women, maybe too much, since to get the power you need to earn it (such as doing hard jobs or fighting wars), and as I said, even today they don't want to do that. About the queens, well, to be a ruler you have to play the game, you kill potential enemies, have to consolidate your power, form alliances, things like that. And those queens did that. Cleopatra killed every single brother and sister to be sure she would stay on the throne (after a little incest, of course) and even seduced two enemy commanders. What I'm trying to say, is that isn't easy to be a ruler. So yeah, when women had that chance, it was safer to not try. They could still live a luxurious life in a safe way, that's why not many tried. And the pressure for marriage, that goes for kings too, because rulers need heirs. Let's make something clear, there are differences between men and women, and among them is the disposition to take risks, Men are more likely to take risks than women, period. And while sometimes it pays off very big, sometimes it ruins them. Feminism loves to point out that most CEOs are men, yes, and most homeless people too.
Long story short, I still think the problem wasn't (and isn't ) society, but women not willing to take risks or do hard jobs (in the past, now, I don't actually see any problem at all, whatever you want to be, compete honestly and you can do it).
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2018
- Messages
- 5,266
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2020
- Messages
- 192
@Purplelibraryguy So many arguments I made, and you are complaining of my knowledge of the Code of Chivalry, which among its rules included the duty to "PROTECT WOMEN". Yes, I agree that like bushido, the knights tended to choose which rules they'd follow, but the fact that this existed, shows very well how society viewed women, and it's not a group to exploit.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2018
- Messages
- 5,266
@Ant1989 The rest of your arguments were not worth engaging either. Sorry, but your view of how things worked and how they work is delusional . . . delusional in your favour as a sheer co-incidence. It's like if flat earthers had a vested interest in the flat earth thing, so their elaborate construct of nonsense had a selfish reason to exist.
@Faryshta No, I don't mean that pathetic stuff. It was literally the law that if a woman disobeyed her husband he was specifically authorized (almost expected) to beat her with a stick. Note the core assumption: If there's a penalty for disobeying, you know who's in charge. Well, in the Middle East and India it's still like that. You can whine about women sometimes abusing their husbands; sure, it happens and it's bad like any abuse, but it remains the miniscule minority compared to the reverse and anyone who spends their time looking for the exceptions to cherry-pick so they can pretend women have it better is engaging in massive intellectual dishonesty.
@Faryshta No, I don't mean that pathetic stuff. It was literally the law that if a woman disobeyed her husband he was specifically authorized (almost expected) to beat her with a stick. Note the core assumption: If there's a penalty for disobeying, you know who's in charge. Well, in the Middle East and India it's still like that. You can whine about women sometimes abusing their husbands; sure, it happens and it's bad like any abuse, but it remains the miniscule minority compared to the reverse and anyone who spends their time looking for the exceptions to cherry-pick so they can pretend women have it better is engaging in massive intellectual dishonesty.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2020
- Messages
- 192
@Purplelibraryguy "but it remains the miniscule minority compared to the reverse" And you dare to call me delusional saying things like that. You know why you think it's "minuscule minority" it's because you don't see it on the news, and because most men think it's shameful to get beaten by a woman, so they fear being ridiculed by the Police. Which is something really funny, since if he fights back, take a guess who can accuse him of domestic violence. Just take a look here, a video shows more than a thousand words. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOyrYThlOag&list=FLDRX3nogtVMqU6Az4cE536A&index=56
EDIT: There is such a thing as incentives. And men have absolutely no incentives to abuse women, but women actually have incentives to abuse men, their hands are morally tied, nothing happens with her if she does that.
EDIT: There is such a thing as incentives. And men have absolutely no incentives to abuse women, but women actually have incentives to abuse men, their hands are morally tied, nothing happens with her if she does that.
@Purplelibraryguy so domestic violence is "pathetic stuff" when the victims are male.
You are a piece of shit.
@Ant1989 that shitstain proved itself unable to show human empathy or understanding of basic logic. No use arguing with it.
You are a piece of shit.
@Ant1989 that shitstain proved itself unable to show human empathy or understanding of basic logic. No use arguing with it.
@ant1989 @Purplelibraryguy
A google search on the gender disparity in domestic violence brings up these sorts of links:
https://www.thehotline.org/stakeholders/domestic-violence-statistics/
https://ncadv.org/STATISTICS
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
https://opdv.ny.gov/professionals/abusers/genderandipv.html
and so on. It's a complicated topic that deserves multilateral discussion, but scanning across sources, it does seem that even if you want to argue that men suffer comparable rates of domestic abuse as women, the severity, duration, and character of the experience is different, and as a group women certainly don't come out better than men. To imply otherwise —which @Ant1989 I feel like is what you're doing, though I could be misreading — is a hard sell.
And although there is room for disagreement on the nuances of gender discrimination, @Ant1989 your saying "All societies always protected women, maybe too much, since to get the power you need to earn it (such as doing hard jobs or fighting wars), and as I said, even today they don't want to do that" as though birthing and raising children, which is pretty much all women were publicly encouraged to do, isn't a hard job really doesn't give credence to your standpoint.
Lastly, apropos of this whole discussion of gendered domestic violence, I would suggest to anyone who wants to talk about the history behind this, and especially those who would like to point to the ~code of chivalry~ as proof that anglophone society at large espoused the ~kindly~ treatment of women, to read Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew. The play draws richly from and expresses the culture of its time. It's hard to miss its glorification of male domestic violence, where the ML (if he can be called that lmao) is roundly admired for his taming of "the shrew" by starving her, tearing up her clothes, and publicly humiliating her. 😐 And then he gets her dowry. And this is a tale coming from THE most celebrated playwright in the western canon. I mean, have christian-dominated societies ever forgiven women since Eve tempted Adam under the tree?
A google search on the gender disparity in domestic violence brings up these sorts of links:
https://www.thehotline.org/stakeholders/domestic-violence-statistics/
https://ncadv.org/STATISTICS
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
https://opdv.ny.gov/professionals/abusers/genderandipv.html
and so on. It's a complicated topic that deserves multilateral discussion, but scanning across sources, it does seem that even if you want to argue that men suffer comparable rates of domestic abuse as women, the severity, duration, and character of the experience is different, and as a group women certainly don't come out better than men. To imply otherwise —which @Ant1989 I feel like is what you're doing, though I could be misreading — is a hard sell.
And although there is room for disagreement on the nuances of gender discrimination, @Ant1989 your saying "All societies always protected women, maybe too much, since to get the power you need to earn it (such as doing hard jobs or fighting wars), and as I said, even today they don't want to do that" as though birthing and raising children, which is pretty much all women were publicly encouraged to do, isn't a hard job really doesn't give credence to your standpoint.
Lastly, apropos of this whole discussion of gendered domestic violence, I would suggest to anyone who wants to talk about the history behind this, and especially those who would like to point to the ~code of chivalry~ as proof that anglophone society at large espoused the ~kindly~ treatment of women, to read Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew. The play draws richly from and expresses the culture of its time. It's hard to miss its glorification of male domestic violence, where the ML (if he can be called that lmao) is roundly admired for his taming of "the shrew" by starving her, tearing up her clothes, and publicly humiliating her. 😐 And then he gets her dowry. And this is a tale coming from THE most celebrated playwright in the western canon. I mean, have christian-dominated societies ever forgiven women since Eve tempted Adam under the tree?
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2020
- Messages
- 192
@Nikoko One thing at a time.
Domestic violence. We don't know. Simple like that. Those studies, don't have all the data, because as I said, it's shameful for men to complain about that, and it's a crime to fight back, so nobody knows. But to dismiss it like it's a "miniscule minority" is bullshit. It's that same mentality of someone who thinks that a crime is only wrong when it's wide-spread, other-wise it's ok (it's ok to kill rich people, so many poor people are killed every day, it's just a "miniscule minority"). Violence is wrong, no matter who is the aggressor, and every instance must be combated. Granted, usually, the data we do have suggests that when the women are the victims, the damage tends to be bigger, but, there is a catch, some interpretation of the data available reveals that men die more victim of their spouses. Such a thing is hard to prove because nobody even tries to find data about that, but it's quite possible considering that is widely known that men die more than women by everything (suicides, violence, diseases, accidents, everything), and die more in their homes as well. The bottom line, we don't have enough data.
Women work in the past, Maybe I didn't explain it right. When I say hard, I mean physically exhaustive and dangerous. Such as lumberjack, blacksmith, miner, etc. Home and kids are relatively safe, and people in the past had fewer standards about ethics, the Industrial Revolution is enough to convince anyone of that. So, yeah, children worked in-home and outside to help and died frequently as well. Of course, if you had money, you'd have a babysitter anyway.
Shakespeare, I agree it's good evidence, but not enough to picture everything. Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet, which is a tragedy, and while the family feuds were real, by your logic, he was glorifying the death of the traitors. Just because something happens in a play, doesn't mean it's glorified, sometimes it's a warning, sometimes it's fantasy, and sometimes the guy is a fucking idiot who only got famous because the queen liked him. It's hard to imagine Elizabeth liking that play though, But I didn't research about this, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt. But if the artists only portray how their societies are, then Florence must be hell.
Queens, you didn't bring this topic, but I think I should finish my argument of that guy. His argument for just a few Queen Rulers to exist is that there was nobody else to take the throne. Which is impossible. There's always someone else, a cousin, or an uncle, or the son of a noble who wants to be king. In that case, if she society saw women poorly and unfit to rule, a queen would rule for 5 seconds, because having a crown on your head means absolutely nothing without the real power, and by that I mean the military, which could be generals or nobles, depending on when and where. If those people want a queen married and quiet knitting, she would be married and quiet knitting, or exiled or dead. So, yeah, those queens fought, and had the approval of those people, which is very good evidence that women weren't seen poorly. My argument is that they weren't seen poorly, but simply don't like risks, and, in general, weren't willing to play the game of power struggle. But when they did, and won, they were just like any other king, and considering how many people Bloody Mary managed to kill, I guess nobody thought she was crazy, or unfit to rule for being a woman (since they put another one in her place).
Domestic violence. We don't know. Simple like that. Those studies, don't have all the data, because as I said, it's shameful for men to complain about that, and it's a crime to fight back, so nobody knows. But to dismiss it like it's a "miniscule minority" is bullshit. It's that same mentality of someone who thinks that a crime is only wrong when it's wide-spread, other-wise it's ok (it's ok to kill rich people, so many poor people are killed every day, it's just a "miniscule minority"). Violence is wrong, no matter who is the aggressor, and every instance must be combated. Granted, usually, the data we do have suggests that when the women are the victims, the damage tends to be bigger, but, there is a catch, some interpretation of the data available reveals that men die more victim of their spouses. Such a thing is hard to prove because nobody even tries to find data about that, but it's quite possible considering that is widely known that men die more than women by everything (suicides, violence, diseases, accidents, everything), and die more in their homes as well. The bottom line, we don't have enough data.
Women work in the past, Maybe I didn't explain it right. When I say hard, I mean physically exhaustive and dangerous. Such as lumberjack, blacksmith, miner, etc. Home and kids are relatively safe, and people in the past had fewer standards about ethics, the Industrial Revolution is enough to convince anyone of that. So, yeah, children worked in-home and outside to help and died frequently as well. Of course, if you had money, you'd have a babysitter anyway.
Shakespeare, I agree it's good evidence, but not enough to picture everything. Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet, which is a tragedy, and while the family feuds were real, by your logic, he was glorifying the death of the traitors. Just because something happens in a play, doesn't mean it's glorified, sometimes it's a warning, sometimes it's fantasy, and sometimes the guy is a fucking idiot who only got famous because the queen liked him. It's hard to imagine Elizabeth liking that play though, But I didn't research about this, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt. But if the artists only portray how their societies are, then Florence must be hell.
Queens, you didn't bring this topic, but I think I should finish my argument of that guy. His argument for just a few Queen Rulers to exist is that there was nobody else to take the throne. Which is impossible. There's always someone else, a cousin, or an uncle, or the son of a noble who wants to be king. In that case, if she society saw women poorly and unfit to rule, a queen would rule for 5 seconds, because having a crown on your head means absolutely nothing without the real power, and by that I mean the military, which could be generals or nobles, depending on when and where. If those people want a queen married and quiet knitting, she would be married and quiet knitting, or exiled or dead. So, yeah, those queens fought, and had the approval of those people, which is very good evidence that women weren't seen poorly. My argument is that they weren't seen poorly, but simply don't like risks, and, in general, weren't willing to play the game of power struggle. But when they did, and won, they were just like any other king, and considering how many people Bloody Mary managed to kill, I guess nobody thought she was crazy, or unfit to rule for being a woman (since they put another one in her place).
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2018
- Messages
- 5,266
Eh, blocked. Not because @Ant1989 or @Faryshta are nasty or anything, but it's just not worth spending the time to read what you guys have to say or pretend it's got any kind of claim to validity long enough to engage. You guys are starting from what you want to be true and warping reality until it fits that, and there's just no point getting into it.
Similar threads
