# Ladies, how do you view men in the past?



## Kalpnisis (Jun 25, 2016)

Just something I am curious about, no judgments. But do you view every man before our modern age as evil sexist hateful men? Whether it be the emperor Nero or your average peasant dude do you view all men back then as horrible people? That regardless of the circumstances just the fact women were oppressed in those times all men before the modern age were evil or at least horrible?

Or one good example I can think of are America's founding father's, regardless of what they accomplished do you think them not immediately granting women every right as men negates any good they may have done?


----------



## Thound (Jan 20, 2013)

A slight thread jack. Ladies who would you more likely be attracted to? A man who stormed the beaches at Normandy, and kicked Hitlers azz or a nice coiffed metro man?


----------



## Spicy (Jun 18, 2016)

Definitely the guy that kicked Hitler's ass.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

SimplyAmorous said:


> Not familiar with the "metro man" term... looked it up on Urban Dictionary just now ...this was the 1st definition...


I have my own definition

A Metro Man: d0uchebag.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

SimplyAmorous said:


> I looked up the definition simply because a question was asked.. if it was clearly a d0uchbag... the answer is too obvious....why ask...
> 
> I figured there must be some pluses & minuses on both sides... but yeah.. that option is purely unappealing every which way...


Every which way to Sunday.

Our PC society is destroying men. 

Men can always improve and should endeavor to do so.

The improvement should not erase or mask those qualities that women love....and a fearsome Earth demands.

The one-percenters and the ten percent that they lead and inspire, hold down the fort and need to be role-models for the rest of [MAN]kind.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Talk about a thread jack that basically completely changes the orginal question of the thread.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Kalpnisis said:


> Just something I am curious about, no judgments. But do you view every man before our modern age as evil sexist hateful men? Whether it be the emperor Nero or your average peasant dude do you view all men back then as horrible people? That regardless of the circumstances just the fact women were oppressed in those times all men before the modern age were evil or at least horrible?
> 
> Or one good example I can think of are America's founding father's, regardless of what they accomplished do you think them not immediately granting women every right as men negates any good they may have done?


No, I do not view them that way. Some of them may have wanted to more broadly extend the right to vote, but were not able to. I have not read enough on the subject to know.

I think there have always been men who respected and valued women. The laws we have now are meant to protect us from men who do not.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Kalpnisis said:


> Or one good example I can think of are America's founding father's, regardless of what they accomplished do you think them not immediately granting women every right as men negates any good they may have done?


I think that this is a very interesting topic. A good discussion could go a long way to dispel the misconception some people have about how a good number of women today view men who lived in past times.

People have always lived within (and some outside of) the confines of the society into which they were born. They should probably be judge according to how they functioned within that society and that time.

So no, I don’t view every man before our modern age as evil sexist hateful men. There were man good men. There were man bad men. And of course many men who fell in-between.



Kalpnisis said:


> Or one good example I can think of are America's founding father's, regardless of what they accomplished do you think them not immediately granting women every right as men negates any good they may have done?


When you look at America’s founding fathers, they were remarkable men for their time. In a time when all power and rights were in the hands of kings, queens and a ruling monarchies, they had the inspiration to create a country (based on our Bill of Rights and Constitution) that gave a large segment of the population the power…. All of the power in the nation.


Sure most, if not all of them, envisioned that the rights were given to land owners and not women and not people who were slave. But what they did was something very new in the world. And they had the foresight to add that the Constitution could be amended. That left it open so that each new generation was able to add enlightenment. It seems that the idea that all people have equal rights had to be nurtured and cared for until it blossomed. 

There are individuals that we can look back on and say that they were despicable people, in the context of their own time. For example, the men who beat up, imprisoned and harassed women who were trying to get the vote for both all people regardless of race and for all women regardless of race… now those were despicable men.


----------



## TAMAT (Jun 20, 2015)

Kalpnsis,

Neither evil nor good, but a product of their times as we are of ours and our culture. 

Supposedly the first thing we determine about someone we meet is their gender, it's so fundamental that we are not even conscious of it. So to perhaps a great degree sexism is built into our brains and there may be a limit to how far we can suppress it..

Hasidic Jews, The Amish and 1% bikers understand this and in their cultures men are men and women are women and they dress and act the roles. What do we say about those cultures, are they archaic or do they provide a meaning to life that modern people have lost. 

Tamat


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

EleGirl said:


> Talk about a thread jack that basically completely changes the orginal question of the thread.


How do I view men of the past?

Except for a "lot" of the Allied WWII generation....not kindly. 

Why? They did not leave the sandbox in better condition than they found it.

Why is this? One percent know how to fix things. The other 99% are too busy or not intellectually equipped to listen and to act in the best interest of Mankind.

This is not a criticism, it is "our" collective limitation at play. Pun 
intended.

Today's problems were Yesterdays Supper; today's bellyache. 

Supper that went un-chewed and hastily gulped down.

Oh, this was for ladies to answer, my bad!


----------



## rileyawes (Jun 28, 2016)

I don't think all men in the past were horrible...some were just benignly paternalistic. Even my beloved, fictional Darcy. I think many men believed that women were inferior mentally and physically and needed to be "protected." Some even felt that women wouldn't know what to do given the vote and freedom to work, etc. Many women agreed. I think the kindest interpretation of the past was that they viewed men as having one set of roles and women as having a different, but equally important, set of roles, and that to shake things up would be to pervert the natural course and potentially disrupt society.

I think "product of their times" is a pretty bad argument that's used to excuse the bad conduct of people who knew better. For instance, there have been abolitionists as long as there has been slavery. Men supported women's rights long before women got the right to vote. People supported minimum wages, reform for mental asylums, opposed child labor, etc etc. Germans hid and protected Jews during WWII. The people that went against the grain of "their times" were stronger and more moral than all the others that just went along with it. They had vision and foresight and compassion where most people were just thinking about themselves and how to keep or enhance their own status. I don't have any beef with people who were consumed with the daily grind of living because their lives sucked and they had no energy for anything else, but everyone is a product of their times! Those that stick their necks out to help others when it doesn't benefit them, on no matter how small a scale, are the people we should admire.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

rileyawes said:


> I think "product of their times" is a pretty bad argument that's used to excuse the bad conduct of people who knew better. For instance, there have been abolitionists as long as there has been slavery. Men supported women's rights long before women got the right to vote. People supported minimum wages, reform for mental asylums, opposed child labor, etc etc. Germans hid and protected Jews during WWII. The people that went against the grain of "their times" were stronger and more moral than all the others that just went along with it. They had vision and foresight and compassion where most people were just thinking about themselves and how to keep or enhance their own status. I don't have any beef with people who were consumed with the daily grind of living because their lives sucked and they had no energy for anything else, but everyone is a product of their times! Those that stick their necks out to help others when it doesn't benefit them, on no matter how small a scale, are the people we should admire.



Love this.. I agree.. it's a Cop out..


----------



## Kalpnisis (Jun 25, 2016)

Interesting thoughts. One somewhat similar question I have is considering the times, do you think the women that ruled in various capacities in the past can be excused for their behaviors? Such as bloody mary, elizabeth bathory, the women that managed to become pirates, etc. Do you think they were okay with what they did under the circumstances they were in?


----------



## joannacroc (Dec 17, 2014)

I view them as a product of their time, good and bad. Some committed atrocities, and they were evil. Some didn't and were just narrow-minded, rather than evil.


----------



## katiecrna (Jan 29, 2016)

I think they were sexist, ape like barbarians. But those were the times so you can't get mad at them for it. 

Every person that did something great has something bad about them. It does not negate the good they did though. No one is 100% good.


----------



## Haiku (Apr 9, 2014)

jld said:


> The laws we have now are meant to protect us from men who do not.


I apologize for commenting. 

No criticism intended but the question asks for a judgement about a previous period of time using today's views and values. I'm not sure to the extent that's an important consideration but isn't it somewhat relevant?


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Haiku said:


> I apologize for commenting.
> 
> No criticism intended but the question asks for a judgement about a previous period of time using today's views and values. I'm not sure to the extent that's an important consideration but isn't it somewhat relevant?


Sorry, not following you. Could you clarify, please?


----------



## Haiku (Apr 9, 2014)

jld said:


> Sorry, not following you. Could you clarify, please?


I probably shouldn't have quoted you because my comment is to the thread. 

I was trying to say that the question seems to ask for an opinion on people who lived long ago in a much different time but based on our values and views of today. I don't know if that's entirely right or wrong.


----------

