Oh you mean the era where women were second class citizens? and or dying from Cholera, TB, or Dysentry. Yeah. Real romantic. (learning history has poisoned my love for this era.)
Aaah, the good old days.
Rememeber, always seperate your drinking water from your pooping water
Awe crap! I knew I forgot something today.
On a slightly unrelated note… anyone know how to treat cholera? Is it leaches or quicksilver?
Women have always had pretty much the same rights as men in Europe.
Even during the Dark Ages.
I get that the joke is supposed to be “they had the same rights because they both had none”, but unofficial laws and cultural pressure such as gender “roles” has been keeping women down for a long time (although I suppose men were also kept down, just in slightly different ways). Why do you think 99.9% of the leaders during those eras were men? (and let’s not forget the whole not being able to vote thing)
Wasn’t the right to vote severely limited in the 1800s? Of course, the answer depends on the country.
If we’re talking England, was a woman of noble birth more oppressed than a peasant man?
And weren’t there Queens that ruled without Kings?
For a long time, in Europe, the only right people had, man or woman, was the right to their own life.
If there were such noticeable differences, I’m more than willing to learn them.
I suppose from a purely legal perspective you would be right. But the legal part is just the tip of the iceberg. Throughout history men had much greater access to education, they were not automatically stereotyped as incompetent, etc. There were (and still are) a lot of cultural “norms” that very much screwed over women in the form of things like “gender roles” and such. Of course it’s not clear cut as men had things like conscription to deal with but the fact remains that for a good portion of history women were lower on the social totem pole then men.
Not all men had access to higher education, even in rich families, it was only the first born. It could b very expensive, because schools weren’t everywhere.
While “gender roles” may seem like discrimination NOW, one has to realise that things then weren’t as they are now. Hard work really meant backbreaking work for as long as the sun was up. There were no 9 to 5 cushy jobs for the majority of the populace. The man worked quite literally all day, which meant someone had to take care of the house & kids. That role fell to the woman.
Kids, by the way, which started helping out around the house quite early. Again, between a 12 year old boy pushing a plow & digging all day, or a 12 year old girl doing the same, with your survival depending on having the work done at the right time (seasons wait for no man), indulging in “equality issues” was preposterous. Would you risk starving your family, quite possibly to death, just because your daughter was throwing a fit?
Honestly, I’d like to see a feminist plow a field from dawn until dusk.
Of course, this was if you were lower class. Noble women had it made. All the housework and baby-sitting was done by servants, and the only responsibilities they had were social. They were really better off than men, pampered all day with nary a care in the world.
Feminism breeds hysteria & hysteria breeds more feminism. It’s a (very) vicious cycle. Women in the West were always pretty well off.
Well, she obviously doesn’t know her history.
Yes. The Georgians were the Romantics, and 1800 is smack bang in the middle of the Georgian era.
But Victoria wasn’t queen until 1837, and wasn’t born until 1819. And Victorians were almost as uptight as the Puritans.
Toonhole
14 comments on “More Romantic”
Oh, swelling breasts.
I like it.
Oh you mean the era where women were second class citizens? and or dying from Cholera, TB, or Dysentry. Yeah. Real romantic. (learning history has poisoned my love for this era.)
Aaah, the good old days.
Rememeber, always seperate your drinking water from your pooping water
Awe crap! I knew I forgot something today.
On a slightly unrelated note… anyone know how to treat cholera? Is it leaches or quicksilver?
Women have always had pretty much the same rights as men in Europe.
Even during the Dark Ages.
I get that the joke is supposed to be “they had the same rights because they both had none”, but unofficial laws and cultural pressure such as gender “roles” has been keeping women down for a long time (although I suppose men were also kept down, just in slightly different ways). Why do you think 99.9% of the leaders during those eras were men? (and let’s not forget the whole not being able to vote thing)
Wasn’t the right to vote severely limited in the 1800s? Of course, the answer depends on the country.
If we’re talking England, was a woman of noble birth more oppressed than a peasant man?
And weren’t there Queens that ruled without Kings?
For a long time, in Europe, the only right people had, man or woman, was the right to their own life.
If there were such noticeable differences, I’m more than willing to learn them.
I suppose from a purely legal perspective you would be right. But the legal part is just the tip of the iceberg. Throughout history men had much greater access to education, they were not automatically stereotyped as incompetent, etc. There were (and still are) a lot of cultural “norms” that very much screwed over women in the form of things like “gender roles” and such. Of course it’s not clear cut as men had things like conscription to deal with but the fact remains that for a good portion of history women were lower on the social totem pole then men.
Not all men had access to higher education, even in rich families, it was only the first born. It could b very expensive, because schools weren’t everywhere.
While “gender roles” may seem like discrimination NOW, one has to realise that things then weren’t as they are now. Hard work really meant backbreaking work for as long as the sun was up. There were no 9 to 5 cushy jobs for the majority of the populace. The man worked quite literally all day, which meant someone had to take care of the house & kids. That role fell to the woman.
Kids, by the way, which started helping out around the house quite early. Again, between a 12 year old boy pushing a plow & digging all day, or a 12 year old girl doing the same, with your survival depending on having the work done at the right time (seasons wait for no man), indulging in “equality issues” was preposterous. Would you risk starving your family, quite possibly to death, just because your daughter was throwing a fit?
Honestly, I’d like to see a feminist plow a field from dawn until dusk.
Of course, this was if you were lower class. Noble women had it made. All the housework and baby-sitting was done by servants, and the only responsibilities they had were social. They were really better off than men, pampered all day with nary a care in the world.
Feminism breeds hysteria & hysteria breeds more feminism. It’s a (very) vicious cycle. Women in the West were always pretty well off.
Well, she obviously doesn’t know her history.
Yes. The Georgians were the Romantics, and 1800 is smack bang in the middle of the Georgian era.
But Victoria wasn’t queen until 1837, and wasn’t born until 1819. And Victorians were almost as uptight as the Puritans.
She?
Well.
Ms. Juanita Martinez it is, then.
M’lady.
Hello,nice share.
Hello,nice share.