Were women oppressed/unhappy in the past as feminists claim?

[Winston]

Feminists and liberals claim that women were oppressed and unhappy in the past. Yet I see no evidence of this. It seems they are LYING about history. The opposite appears to be true.

If you look at photos and videos of women from the 1920's to the 1950's, you will see that women looked sweet, wholesome, caring, feminine and were proud of their womanhood. If they were unhappy, it was because they had a hard life in poverty, or didn't have a man to love, but that's natural and understandable.

But women of the past were not unhappy due to lack of equal rights or having to conform to womanhood. They knew that men and women were DIFFERENT and had different roles and places in society. They did not expect that men and women had to be the same or equal, because everyone knew that they weren't. It was a given. So women were happy to serve their function as women.

In contrast, feminist women today look angry, hateful, mean-spirited, rotten, and screwed up. They have the worst personalities and look angry and jaded. So THEY are the ones that are unhappy, not the women of the past.

Moreover, women in foreign countries that have not been corrupted by feminism, such as Latin America and Russia, do not look unhappy or oppressed. They look sweet, caring and feminine. The only unhappiness they experience is from poverty or not being able to find a man. But it is not unhappiness from having to be women.

Anyhow, here are images of women in the past so you can see for yourself if they look oppressed or unhappy from having to be women.

1920's Women
https://www.google.com/search?q=women+1 ... 60&imgdii=_

1930's Women
https://www.google.com/search?q=women+1 ... 0s&imgdii=_

1940's Women
https://www.google.com/search?q=women+1 ... omen+1940s

1950's Women
https://www.google.com/search?q=women+1 ... omen+1950s

[Ghost]

.

[Traveler]

Women had it both better and worse than men in the past. Life was great for a few lucky men at the top. However, the average man was more likely to die in war and while doing other dangerous jobs. Societies in the past tended to value the lives of women more than men. Women were needed for reproduction purposes. On the other hand, one man could impregnate multiple women so the lives of most men were viewed as being more expendable.

"Seeing all this, the feminists thought, wow, men dominate everything, so society is set up to favor men. It must be great to be a man.

"The mistake in that way of thinking is to look only at the top. If one were to look downward to the bottom of society instead, one finds mostly men there too. Who’s in prison, all over the world, as criminals or political prisoners? The population on Death Row has never approached 51% female. Who’s homeless? Again, mostly men. Whom does society use for bad or dangerous jobs? US Department of Labor statistics report that 93% of the people killed on the job are men. Likewise, who gets killed in battle? Even in today’s American army, which has made much of integrating the sexes and putting women into combat, the risks aren’t equal. This year we passed the milestone of 3,000 deaths in Iraq, and of those, 2,938 were men, 62 were women.....

"Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.

"I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced....

"Any man who reads the newspapers will encounter the phrase 'even women and children' a couple times a month, usually about being killed. The literal meaning of this phrase is that men’s lives have less value than other people’s lives. The idea is usually 'It’s bad if people are killed, but it’s especially bad if women and children are killed.' And I think most men know that in an emergency, if there are women and children present, he will be expected to lay down his life without argument or complaint so that the others can survive. On the Titanic, the richest men had a lower survival rate (34%) than the poorest women (46%) (though that’s not how it looked in the movie)....

"To summarize my main points: A few lucky men are at the top of society and enjoy the culture’s best rewards. Others, less fortunate, have their lives chewed up by it. Culture uses both men and women, but most cultures use them in somewhat different ways. Most cultures see individual men as more expendable than individual women, and this difference is probably based on nature, in whose reproductive competition some men are the big losers and other men are the biggest winners. Hence it uses men for the many risky jobs it has."
http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

[jamesbond]

[Luc Furr]

If you have never experienced something then you don't know what you are missing. When you get a taste of freedom, independence, crack cocaine, riches, godhood, whatever....then you know what you are missing when it is taken away. Life becomes hollow and meaningless. Look at the Pinoys, when they were "savages" living in their simple huts they were happy. Once "white" man came and showed them new trinkets many of those Pinoys were no longer happy to live in their old way. Paradise became not enough. Same for Fijians after WW2 with SPAM. Africans who had their freedom stolen. Women have tasted freedom and be d*mned if anyone is going to take it away from them. Try and they will resist you, destroy you if needed.