I suggest you read this blog:
https://sirtyrionlannister.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/how-the-...
So many men who are now experiencing problems with finding a partner now, say due to being a nasty/abusive/uninteresting/unintelligent/ugly, 80-100 years ago would be able to land a wife just by being the only person in the family who could provide. So in 2023, when they have to date equals, who are financially independent, they are experiencing “celibacy”.
If you're not talking to boys about Andrew Tate because it hasn't come up (because it would be too cringe, as the kids say), don't worry, YouTube (reposts) have got you covered.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. If anything I was "casting shade" at you for your remark about how terrible young men are. You're the one defending someone calling them "nasty/abusive/uninteresting/unintelligent/ugly".
> If you're not talking to boys about Andrew Tate because it hasn't come up (because it would be too cringe, as the kids say), don't worry, YouTube (reposts) have got you covered.
I talk to men in their early 20s to 40s mostly, the guys who go to my BJJ gym. I can promise you not one of them gives a shit about Andrew Tate's "HoW To bE aN aLpHa MaLe" grift. Half of them have probably never even heard of him.
Right now it’s a symptom of a much larger social-economic situation, with growing social isolation and poverty
Sure, there may be females that are just looking for a male who is nice. But in general they are looking for a male who is nice and good looking and has high societal status.
Just as males are looking for females that are good looking and fertile.
That's what all animals do. They try to maximize their reproductive success. Humans are animals. And even though we have contraceptives that negate the effect of the behavior, the underlying drive and mechanisms are still the same.
When it comes to human societies; I don't buy that whole "patriarchal social constructs" thing.
Society is a matter of constant negotiation between the sexes, not something that is forced from one sex onto the other and set in stone. To believe that females are oppressed by males is to believe that females are helpless and fragile and need to be protected. Females can very much take care of themselves and are just as strong a force in shaping society - if not more so - than males.
Your simplistic view on reproductive behavior results in a completely misunderstood and sexist viewpoint which only serves to reinforce misunderstandings between the sexes.
Were women just voluntarily not voting in the US or what?
Voting rights were limited to rich men only. Poor men couldn't vote either. Only with the conscription into citizens' armies after the French revolution became it necessary for the "elites" to share their power. And soon after poor men gained suffrage, everyone gained suffrage. Go and check the development of voting rights in various democracies - you will find exactly this pattern.
So no; women have not been historically oppressed, not even in some highly religious societies.
Poor people have historically been oppressed. In any society.
Women had other roles than men. That doesn't mean they were oppressed. That narrative propagates capitalistic propaganda to turn the poor against themselves and to divert from the the fact that power always was limited to those with means. You know - the actual oppressors.
However the oppression of the poor has historically run in parallel with the oppression of women. In ancient societies, women were often excluded from political and public life, and their main role was to bear children and maintain the household. This was true in many early civilizations, such as ancient Greece, Rome, and China.
Religion also played a significant role in the oppression of women. Many religious traditions, such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, have traditionally placed women in subordinate roles, with men as the primary religious leaders and decision-makers.
Women were also subjected to practices such as foot-binding, female genital mutilation, and forced marriages. These practices aimed to control and limit women's movements and independence, and were often seen as necessary for maintaining social order.
Your assumption of "historically oppressed women" only works if you perceive of women as being told by men how to behave and what to do.
That's wrong. That is a fundamentally wrong understanding of how human societies work. Men are told how to behave by women and men. Women are told how to behave by women and men.
Society and societal expectations are not something shaped by men. Is the construct of constant negotiations between both males and females.
As with regard to "women being in subordinate roles"; there I suggest you to read more about the dual hierarchies of males and females. Men and women had for a very, very long time separate hierarchies - and to some degree still do. While the male hierarchy is typically oriented out-of-family, female hierarchies are typically oriented into-family.
With the spread of agriculture and the rise of larger societies, the out-of-family hierarchies started to merge, creating larger and larger hierarchies with the family of the topmost male dominating this hierarchy. With time these hierarchies became the framework for legal and male-religious organization. That's why women hat to "break-in" to these hierarchies.
The into-family hierarchies stayed mostly separate, in the household, the tribe and usually didn't expand out of the family. The Mosuo people in China are one notable exception to that "rule".
> Women were also subjected to practices such as foot-binding, female genital mutilation, and forced marriages.
If you do some research you'll find that these things are not forced onto the females by men; they are forced onto the females by females and males. And if you find it abhorable that females' feet were bound - how angry will you be when you hear that most hard labor was forced onto men? Forced onto them by both men and women.
This whole "patriarchy" is really the invention of wealthy, fin de siècle bourgeoisie that was disgusted by the development of universal male suffrage; the rich will never let the poor have a share.