Reddit reviews The Privileged Sex

Men are clearly the "oppressed" sex when you look at quality of life indicators or even just the likelihood of staying alive. This is true now and it was true a thousand years ago. Military historian Martin Van Crevelt went so far as to claim that women have always been the privileged sex. This is debatable, but it is certainly true that on average, women have always had more safe, comfortable lives than men.

Today, there is simply no contest. It isn't just the demonizing of male sexuality, males are now "institutionally oppressed" at every single level: schools, universities, the workplace, criminal courts, family courts, media representation, state funding etc. etc. Most MRA's don't like using the word "oppression" because they are accustomed to hearing it from spoiled brats upset over fat-shaming and manspreading, but in reality it simply means cruel or unjust treatment.

The problem does not lie with women (although to the extent that women enable or support anti-male laws and culture they deserve blame and condemnation). From an institutional perspective the problem lies with the male feminists and gynocentric tradcucks, without whom feminism would never have gotten off the ground, let alone dominate society.

On the subject of vilifying men for their sexuality, tradcons deserve an equal amount of blame. They have repeatedly joined forces with feminists in casting men as dangerous predators. Indeed there was a post on KIA recently linking to a right wing religious blog; the author was celebrating the fact that on the subject of prostitution, pornography etc. feminism will succeed where they failed.

A Reference book of men's issues is probably your best bet for finding relevant studies.

[MRRef] (https://www.reddit.com/r/MRRef/) is more extensive but will require more digging.

Videos:

The Red Pill (NYA)

Everything by Karen Straughan

Everything by Janice Fiamengo

Books:

[Is There Anything Good About Men?] (https://gendertruce.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/baumeister-roy-is-there-anything-good-about-men.pdf) (full book online) by Roy Baumeister

The Myth of Male Power: Why Men are the Disposable Sex by Warren Farrell

The Privileged Sex by Martin Van Creveld

The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys by David Benetar

The Fraud of Feminism (full book online) by Earnest Belford Bax

Who Stole Feminism? by Christina Hoff Sommers

The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff Sommers

Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

Replacing Misandry: A Revolutionary History of Men by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

No More Sex War by Neil Lyndon

A few works that I think deserve more attention. Some are directly related to Men's Rights, others tangentially.

Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior by Christopher Boehm

War, Peace, Human Nature: Converging Evolutionary & Cultural Views by Douglas Fry et. al

Female Forms of Power and the Myth of Male Dominance: A Model of Female/Male Interaction in Peasant Society (paper online) by Susan Carol Rogers

Favoured or oppressed? Married women, property and ‘coverture’ in England, 1660–1800 (paper online) by J. Bailey

The Mothers: A Study of the Origins of Sentiments and Institutions (full book online) by Robert Briffault

Gynocentrism: From Feudalism to the Modern Disney Princess by Peter Wright

Sex and Culture (full book online) by J.D. Unwin

The Manipulated Man (full book online) by Esther Villar

Unknown Misandry (website)

Real Sexism (website)

The Privileged Sex

Female Forms of Power and the Myth of Male Dominance

Female Power in the Past

The Myth of Male Power

The Second Sexism

Legalizing Misandry

> It started at a point where full equality was practically achieved.

It most certainly did not. Women have always been the privileged sex. By only focussing on the female side of the equation feminism has never moved us toward gender equality but only ever away from it. The situation is now so lopsided and out of whack that men have no choice but to go against their gender role (which feminists have shamelessly exploited -- the male gender role is to provide for and protect women and children) and draw attention to their own forms of oppression.

Edit: Yes, I know men hate using the word oppression, but I'm sorry to say that the shoe fits. It is certainly cruel and unjust to force men to finance their ex-wives/new baby daddies while being denied access to their children, for example.

>It's important to note that this is a cultural phenomenon, not a political one.

I may be misunderstanding you but I'm not sure you're correct on this particular point. Cultural misandry is indeed being reflected in actual laws. See Legalizing Misandry by the Canadian academics Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young (both left-wingers, incidentally).

Indeed analyses of political discrimination against men go back to at least the late 19th century when the socialist Earnest Belfort Bax wrote The Legal Subjugation of Men (1896).

The very idea that males can suffer gender-based discrimination is extremely counter-intuitive for both men and women. This is in part because the male gender role is rooted in strength. The other problem is that most people in positions of overt power are male; however powerful men do not actually try to "privilege" other males; quite the opposite; males (unlike females) lack in-group preference and indeed tend to favor the opposite sex. Powerful men loving being chivalrous. Study after study has determined that there is a very large "empathy gap" between the sexes. Several have found eg if forced to choose between killing an innocent man or woman, both sexes will choose the man.

One academic, albeit an Israeli right-wing military strategist, has even claimed that females are and always have been the privileged sex. I wouldn't go that far, but it's pretty clear if you look at the statistical data alone that "patriarchy" hypothesis is fundamentally irrational. No, men don't want to oppress their own mothers and daughters, and no, males aren't privileged. Rich men, sure.

Since we're talking about feminism and political power, it's very interesting to note that there is probably a Machiavellian aspect to this as well. The first "gender studies" courses were financed by the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, and extreme anti-male feminism (what we would now call mainstream feminism) arose during the "COINTELPRO" era.

Left wing media analysis Mark Crispin Miller stated the following during Occupy Wall Street, after being accosted by feminist Laurie Pennie:

"It’s interesting to note that Ford and Rockefeller and the other foundations with strong CIA connections started giving grants in the early 70s to study race and gender. It was a sudden move towards identity politics by these organisations and the theory is that the reason they did this was to balkanise the left and to prevent it from pursuing any kind of a class or economic analysis. Without denying the justice of what you’re saying, this is not an irrelevant theory. I don’t think, anyway."

His opinion is bolstered by an FBI document from 1969:

"The Women’s Liberation Movement may be considered as subversive to the New Left and revolutionary movements as they have proven to be a divisive and factionalizing factor.... It could be well recommended as a counterintelligence movement to weaken the revolutionary movement.” This was from an August, 1969 report by the head of the San Francisco FBI office.[4] Within several years, the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations were pumping millions into women’s studies programs on campus.







If you actually look at the statistics you find that men and boys fare worse on practically every quality of life indicator. So at minimum, leftists need to abandon this "male privilege" nonsense.

"Male privilege" theory is one of the most retarded concepts in the history of the world. I can't believe I even have to argue this. A boy who had his guts blown out and died on a bed of barbed wire inhaling poisonous gas during WWI was privileged? Are you out of your fucking mind?

A more intriguing question is whether women have always been the privileged sex, as Israeli war historian Martin Van Creveld argues in his book of the same name. I don't think so, personally. Though females have had all sorts of privileges throughout history, how many men here would prefer to be a woman?

>You know better though. There are so many posts here about "normies" coping, when you're the ones making up this black and white nonsense as a cope.

There's a lot of coping here, but this isn't cope. How is an ugly person pointing out how looks are everything 'cope'? Do you even know what ‘cope’ means? “Coping” is characterized by a degree of false optimism.

>Go look at any female who is remotely attractive online and there are plenty of dumb comments from guys.

It's not the same. Male attraction towards attractive women isn't nearly as obsessive. Young men are certainly attracted to hot women, but the attraction isn't nearly as obsessive as sending serial killers love letters or female FBI agents sleeping with ISIS members. A guy just thinks "damn, she's hot" and goes about his day.

There's a reason even the hottest women in the world aren't treated with the same amount of obsession as your typical high school girl treats, say, Justin Bieber. You won’t find a man spending day and night thinking about Beyonce or Kim Kardashian. Moreover, men tend to not remain with criminal, psychotic women even if she is attractive. "Don't stick your dick in crazy" has no female analogue.

All in all, women are truly the shallow sex, because they are routinely willing to abrogate any moral principles they claim to have to get Chad cock.

>being a woman for most of recorded history sucked.

Not really. Women have actually had it easier than men for most of recorded history. Substantially easier, in fact. Read this book.

> Yeah, if you're actually really ugly (and a lot of you most certainly aren't) it's unfair and it sucks. Just like being born in sub Sahara Africa sucks, or being born basically anyone before 1960 or so often sucked, or being a woman for most of recorded history sucked.
>Life generally fucking sucks, welcome to reality

Notice how the attitude towards social injustice changes when incels are on the receiving end. Suddenly, you people become all nihilistic. “The world is unfair. Just deal with it”. You would never say that to any other marginalized group. Suddenly, when the conversation is about male virgins, the typical hypocritical progressive (tm) Reddit user reverts to effectively far-right talking points about the cruelty of reality.

> Because historically, factually, men have not been oppressed.

Absolutely absurd. Look up the word "androcide." Or look at the DNA stats. At every point in civilized history men and boys have been much, much more likely to be slaughtered. If that isn't "oppression" nothing is.

>In the olden days, it was forbidden for women to own property.

This is a feminist myth

>For example, women are now allowed to be in leadership positions, right? But we're still woefully underrepresented

This is also a feminist myth. Males have out group bias toward women, whereas females have in group bias toward themselves. In other words, it doesn't matter whether e.g. a politician is male or female, they will still serve women's interests above those of men. For the most part that means protection -- which is why the majority of people who have ever reproduced and passed on their DNA have been female. And yes, this can indeed take on "patriarchal" forms (e.g. in Saudi Arabia women are required to have male chaperones). All societies require protection of women, while males are disposable.

>And you're right - It's not like the olden days when all men really were oppressing all women by not allowing them to own property

Again, this is a myth. Females have always been the privileged sex.. Your basic problem is that you're not looking at the disadvantages of being male. You're only focussing on the (rapidly disappearing) benefits.

>saying that men are allowed to rape their wives

The idea that "rape" was even possible in a marriage is a new, novel idea. The whole point of marriage was for men to protect and provide for women in exchange for sex and support. If you want to see what "oppression" looks like, most countries do not even recognize female on male rape. This even extends to adult females raping boys. That's where most male rapists come from, incidentally. Three separate studies in Canada determined that between 60-80 percent of male rapists were sexually abused by women as children.

Have females suffered disadvantages and hardships and even "oppression" throughout history? Sure. So have males. To the extent that one sex has been "privileged" it is clearly females, if for no other reason than you were much more likely to be alive and to be able to reproduce. 99 percent of men have no desire to harm women, on the contrary we have an instinctual impulse to want to protect and provide for you.

>In America

Stats vary depending on country. In the UK, poor white boys now get the "worst start in life", according to a recent study cited by the BBC. This is the problem with viewing everything through a lens of identity rather than class -- non white poor people will be given a leg up, poor white boys will not, and they will therefore sink to the bottom of the hierarchy. This, in turn, will provide fertile recruiting grounds for far right movements.

>Men aren't oppressed

Sorry, the stats clearly show otherwise. Men and boys have to deal with real institutional oppression, as opposed to feminist complaints like "manspreading" and "sexist air conditioning" or the "pay gap" which is caused by men working longer hours in more difficult and dangerous jobs.

>Who doesn't want privilege?

One can make the argument that men were historically privileged. One can also make an argument that women were privileged historically. Both are probably accurate, which is to say that men had some privileges and so did women. The privilege of being alive and being able to reproduce was a big one. Men certainly aren't privileged today in the west.

These guys certainly weren't privileged. And these guys? Not a chance.

It is in fact virtually impossible to tell how "privileged" a life someone has led simply by looking at them. To the extent that the pseudo left continues to embrace these nonsensical theories, we will continue to see the explosive growth of the far right.

> Throughout much of our history until recent times, men really did oppress women and hold them back. Actively.

Nah. Men have no desire to oppress their own mothers and daughters. They'd have to be a race of psychopaths. Certainly the average woman had it no worse than the average man.

Good book on the subject that debunks most feminist claims about history.

And no that isn't to claim that women didn't suffer discrimination. They did, as did men.

Here's a good post by Karen Straughan about first wave feminists. They didn't fight for equality either. Earnest Bax wrote The Legal Subjugation of Men in the 19th century.

>I'd really like to see Men's Rights groups find common ground with feminism

MRA's have been trying that for decades to no avail. Indeed feminist consistently oppose gender equality and attempts to help men and boys.

They would certainly be wise to change their tune, as the level of (entirely justified) animosity toward feminists is growing rapidly. If MRA's/gender egalitarians don't succeed then the far right will.

This makes for interesting reading.

The female has always been the privileged sex. That being said, I agree with you that the female is still the privileged sex.

> I think conscription is an archaic dinosaur of a policy that creates a class of obedient, yet bitter slaves.

Doesn't change the fact that men were oppressed by this policy due to their sex throughout history. Still are in some countries. Emma Goldman (one of the few historical feminists I can stomach) and other socialists challenged the law during WWI on the basis that it violated the 13th's amendment's prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude. Sadly the challenge failed.

Females have always been the privileged sex.

>I find it bewildering that 50 years ago, men were annoyed that women were allowed into the military, and now, men are angry because not enough women are dying in wars for it to be "fair".

Men don't want women in the military, at least those who are honest about it. Men in the military certainly don't want more women in the military, because it puts their lives at increased risk.

The reason MRA's bring up men being forced to fight and die in wars is to refute the bizarre notion that men have been "privileged" throughout history. In fact the average man was simply a disposable workhorse, and to the extent that one sex was privileged it was at least arguably females.. Personally I don't think either sex was really privileged, there was a fairly equal share of burdens.

>Assuming that's true (which I don't believe)

Feel free to refute the study in question. Right now you're simply being obstinate.

>Remember, a hundred years ago, women had a much larger negative fiscal impact because most couldn't get jobs.

Really? I wonder where all those factory girls came from?

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that women a hundred years ago were chomping at the bit to go inhale toxic fibers all day in a textile mill.

In fact, as Christina Hoff Sommers has noted and as should be plainly obvious, most women preferred domesticity. This remains true. Becoming a housewife is the new American dream for working women, and numerous studies have demonstrated that housewives are happier and healthier than those who have to work.

Ultimately you're missing the point. Most men probably wouldn't object to women receiving the majority of tax benefits -- they have shown over and over again that they value females before their very lives. What we're looking for is some degree of fairness and some degree of respect and appreciation for the benefits you accrue at our expense.

>I didn't ask how the percentages broke down.

You suggested male DV victims being arrested may be anomalous. I've now informed you that one in four is the percentage. If you want to learn more read the study. You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing rather than for improving your knowledge and (potentially) changing your viewpoint.

>One study.

Here we go again. More pointless arguing instead of simply conceding the point. How many studies would be sufficient? Here's another. At least feminists acknowledge the data and try to make excuses instead of denying reality.

>You're talking about replacing the entire criminal justice system, which means it's not a men's rights issue, it's a criminal justice issue.

It's both a men's rights issue and a criminal justice issue, because, you know, men are the ones being treated six times worse.

>Right, because I'm going to learn from a one-sided source. That's how we become smarter

Why not? I read feminist literature and occasionally I even learn something. In Ms. Straughan's case, her lecture is simply a recounting of the documented history of support or lack thereof by feminists for specific legislation. She demonstrates that feminists have consistently reinforced traditional gender dynamics, except in cases where such dynamics could potentially disadvantage women, and often, disturbingly, for the sole purpose of disadvantaging or otherwise harming men.

>like you guys, only better organized.

Better funded. There's a crucial difference. MRA's don't receive support by the likes of JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, for example. Strange, since you'd think that in a "patriarchy" men's rights would be paramount.

>That's because all your heroes keep winding up in embarassing scandals.

?

>And yet like many, you'll remain passive about the behaviour of other MRAs (even the ones here in this subreddit), and permissive by extension.

On the contrary I constantly challenge right wing positions on this board and elsewhere (I frequently change usernames). I even managed to educate Karen Straughan about egalitarianism in hunter-gatherer bands. Ms. Straughan is actually capable of changing her mind, so she accepted the correction.

>You may just be the first MRA to say that. I've long-maintained that most people don't see any of the privilege talked about by celebrities and professional victims on the internet.

Really? MRA's are constantly talking about the absurdity of labeling white working class men "privileged." Especially when it comes from well-to-do gender studies professors.

At no point have I claimed women have it easy. Poor women suffer immeasurably more than rich men, and poor men suffer immeasurably more than rich women.

>I'm talking Civil Rights Movement era. Flower Child era. That stuff.

Right. After the invention of the pill and time saving devices in the home some women decided (falsely) that the grass was greener on the other side.

Men then obliged their demands. I fail to see how this disproves my point about gynocentrism.

>Meanwhile, Mens Rights had just started

Actually there was a men's rights movement in the late 19th century, and Earnest Belford Bax wrote The Fraud of Feminism in the early 20th.

It didn't exactly take off because unlike feminism, men's rights does not conform to our gynocentric instincts.

The male gender role is provider and protector. So naturally if women claim they are in distress men are going to try to fix it. Again, males have out-group bias toward females while the same is not true in reverse.

The MRA position is about a thousand times more difficult because we are fundamentally challenging gender roles. Men aren't all powerful. Women aren't all wonderful. And men need help.

>That didn't even convince me and I already support egalitarianism. Good luck, bud.

Thanks. I'll need it. I do in fact have faith that women will be able to learn to empathize with men just like men empathize with women.

It's equally likely, unfortunately, that there will be some sort of social collapse. We can already see its beginnings with the MGTOW phenomenon and misogynist nuts like Elliot Rodgers.

>Right, because women get all the good jobs and big responsibility.

They are 95% less likely to die on the job, so if not being killed counts then yes. Once again you are engaging in apex fallacy. The tiny number of men at the top are not representative of the 99%, nor do they try to privilege said 99%.

As for why, at the apex of society, men are more likely to hold those positions? Well most women are hypergamous, so men compete for status in order to attract a mate. It's not rocket science. A beautiful woman doesn't have to do anything but exist. Men have to earn status, so they devote more time and energy to work. Rich men start from a place of privilege, but the competition is also fierce at the top.

>I never really stuck myself to a label with any serious dedication, unless Trekkie is a label.

I'm both a women's rights advocate and a men's rights advocate and have no problem with either label. "Egalitarian" probably works best though, as it also explains my position on politics and economics.

The writer is a member of the most privileged demographic on the planet - Anglophone white women, so all her talk of "male privilege " is simply a sly inversion. It is not only a lie, but a lie with an agenda.

This is what it looks like when a real historian looks at the gender system:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Privileged-Sex-Martin-Creveld/dp/1484983122

> I think feminists' hangup with sharia is more likely attributed to their intersection with political correctness.

I think that's part of it. But let's be honest here. If the "patriarchy" were real then feminists would be in meltdown mode over the mere prospect of sharia law. Instead they're like "meh, who cares?"

I think that proves my point.

As for your argument that women also suffered under civilization, yes, we can agree. I didn't say that women lived on cloud 9, just that they are indeed privileged in their own way. Indeed an historian even wrote a book called The Privileged Sex. He was not referring to males.

What are you a chick? hehe. Here's your source sweetheart.

https://www.amazon.ca/Privileged-Sex-Martin-van-Creveld/dp/1484983122

BOOM.

> Seriously you expect me to watch all that?

Watch however much you want whenever you want to.

> Please summarize.

They hate divorce court. They hate the institutionalized and legally codified misandry (here, here, here, here, here, etc.). They hate contempt for men in society.

The reasons have been accounted for, documented and published all over the place.

I too am an anarchist and believe in direct democracy.

Feminism is an authoritarian movement created by rich white women. It is designed to demonize men and boys.

Before you latch yourself to patriarchy theory you should check out Karen Straughan's videos. Or read some sensible books about the history of male/female power, like the Privileged Sex or The Myth of Male Power:

http://www.amazon.ca/The-Privileged-Sex-Martin-Creveld/dp/1484983122

> Insofar as I can gather, there are zero male victims of honour killings in the UK.

One-quarter of honor killings in the UK are men. This was mentioned by Davies himself before Parliament. The more you learn...

>Furthermore, I had a peek at the Crown Prosecution Service website

No offense but I'll take Davies' word over some Feminist on the Internet:

"One MP shouted out to me that Nusrat Ghani had mentioned male victims in her speech. Indeed she had, but unfortunately she hadn’t mentioned them where it mattered – in the Bill!

"I had to tell them to look at the screens to see the title of her Bill which we were debating – “Crime (Aggravated Murder of and Violence Against Women) Bill” – which clearly excludes men."

>Fun fact: it wasn't a law. The police simply began treating misogyny and verbal abuse as a hate crime.

How can something be a "crime" but not against the law?

This is the nanny state on steroids. And as I mentioned, the definition for "misogyny" literally included "unwanted speech". That's how absurdly broad it was. Totalitarian beyond belief and strongly reminiscent of patriarchal regimes like Afghanistan, where "crimes" like being "disrespectful" toward women offer strict penalties for men. And the law/policy was obviously not "gender equal" since there was no corresponding program for misandry. Granted that would be rather difficult to enforce since you'd have to lock up every second feminist.

>You're going to have to provide a source for this one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7995844/Judges-told-be-more-lenient-to-women-criminals.html

>But I'm wracking my brain trying to piece together the logic that would allow a MGTOW to not be an MRA.

Just go read a typical MGTOW board. They argue that attempts for men to achieve equal rights are futile because both sexes are fundamentally gynocentric. Common sentiments include "enjoy the decline" and "watch it burn." This is not to say that some MGTOW aren't MRAs.

>I imagine once I start running off a list of names for men in the public spotlight who have advocated restrictions on women, or promoted repealing human rights protections for women, the response will be "He's not an MRA".

Probably because he's not an MRA. You're thinking of tradcons. MRA's oppose traditionalism. I don't think a lot of MRA's want to bring back the law forcing men to pay their wives' debts. Just because someone's male and is opposed to feminism doesn't make him an MRA.

>Opposed to males achieving equal rights? Um, in many feminist minds, women are trying to elevate themselves to where they think you are.

Indeed. And they are mistaking me for people like Bill Gates or Donald Trump. It is an objective fact that women already have more legal rights than men in the West. And a simple look at the stats shows who really suffers institutional oppression.

>Men "achieving" equal rights would essentially demand a step down the ladder, which is stupid.

Lol the exact opposite is true. Equality would mean that women would be denied primary custody and be forced to subsidize their exes while being denied access to their children; the education system would be catered to boys; males would make up the majority of university students; there would be dozens of programs in government catered to men and boys; Health care spending would be in men's favor; women would longer hours in more difficult and dangerous jobs; their right to vote would be contingent on conscription; they would have zero reproductive rights; there would be entire departments in universities designed to demonize females; they wouldn't receive funding for their gender crusades by powerful corporations and the state; they would be discriminated against in hiring practices; they would be continually mocked and denigrated by the media; I could go on indefinitely here.

Equality would be a GARGANTUAN step down for women.

The good news is that most MRA's are fairly realistic about all this, and realize that females will always be the privileged sex. However we do demand some semblance of equal treatment under the law.

Edit: mixed up a few "women and girls" with "boys and men" and vice versa.

http://melaniephillips.com/the-sex-change-society
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Male_Power
http://therawness.com/anatomy-of-female-power-download-and-discussion-page/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manipulated_Man

Not read these yet, but they might be good...
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=vdIrkGLHLPsC
http://www.amazon.com/The-Privileged-Sex-Martin-Creveld/dp/1484983122
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiffed:_The_Betrayal_of_the_American_Man
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/dcrawford/rogers.pdf

You've just reminded me that many public libraries will buy books that the public requests. If you guys want to read any of the books mentioned in this thread check you local library and make a request for them to buy it if they don't hold it.

Edit: http://www.amazon.com/Privileged-Sex-Martin-van-Creveld/dp/1484983122

>Interesting point of view. I would say not having the right to vote and being considered “property” is oppression, but I can see why you would think otherwise.

Then men have just as much right to complain too, since most men in the west couldn't vote until the mid-19th century at the earliest, especially in the UK, where we couldn't vote until 1918, just a decade before most women could. Also, women might have been considered property but least society doesn't still treat you like a disposable utility. There was never much equality in the world, until recently. In fact, there still isn't.

>I don’t agree “protection” is the correct description.

It was in those days.

>It seems you don’t have a full understanding of why the feminist movement began in the 19th century, because there genuinely were unequal rights and women were seen as lesser than a man

When did I say they didn't have less rights? All I said was the movement was not entirely pure from the start. True equality was never their final goal.

>legally women are equals, which is what the movement achieved

And much more than that, of course.

>I would be happy to delve deeper into your perspective of the topic if you are willing to share links or names of texts.

This and this are good places to start. I also encourage you to read this to learn more about how women have more or less manipulated society to their liking and how men (especially those in power) will often betray their own gender to bow to the demands of women. I think you'll find these books very interesting and eye-opening.

>Also, I’m not sure what you mean by “today’s morals” because morals are timeless. There are different philosophies, so of course you may disagree.

What is considered "right and wrong" throughout history changes is what I'm saying. You can't apply our standards to the past. I'm sure people in the future will look back in horror at things we don't even consider to be bad today.