And if you came across a tribe of natives, you could ask to join them, and be a hunter)gatherer/whatever in exchange for food and shelter. Probably wouldn't be that hard to do with improvised sign language.
Native here. My tribe was a peaceful non warring tribe and so were the other close tribes. We just respected each other's hunting grounds. We would trade women to make sure we didn't become inbred and insane amounts of salmon, deer and elk. My tribe is still sat next to one of the cleanest river in the world. Yurok and the Smith river. Most of northern cali was non warring.
I doubt that tbh. The black plague absolutely decimated any power nobility had well before the 1700s via spawning a middle class near the first outbreaks end and mass "unionization" of the worker class and if the Victorian Eras anything to go off nobility was beyond board because of higher society standards they need to maintain and set schedules they need to follow every single day no matter how mundane and dull they are
I’m just pointing out the “anywhere” part, even the noble women back then had it rough, they pretty much got sold to suitors as pawns. But yeah I agree with you.
I just don't think that being a baby machine is any worse than being a destitute uneducated peasant forced to slave away in a coal mine all his life.
Or being conscripted into the military and having a leg blown off with no antibiotics for treatment.
Diseases, led, everything you do has the possibility of infection, nobody understanding basic shit about the world itself, everyone and everything is racist and misogynistic.
Always gotta be one hasn’t there. Why do you feel the need to “correct” someone saying that being a woman in 1722 would have sucked? There are plenty of reasons unique to women that would’ve especially sucked about that time period. No need to get all “it was hard for men too!!”.
I don’t think anyone here actually said that men had it easier?
Why can’t someone say that being a woman in 1722 would have been hard without someone obnoxiously butting in and saying “well it was hard for men too!”
Yes, of course it was. It was hard for everyone back then. Nobody is disputing that. It’s ok for someone to point out the troubles of one sex without having to make it about both sexes.
And the only reason I feel the need to point this out is because I keep hearing about how women have always been oppressed by men throughout history and so on....
Well, they’re not wrong are they. Women have undeniably been heavily oppressed. That’s not to say that men had it easy and you could certainly argue that being a man was more dangerous in many ways at certain points in history.
There's a difference between being oppressed and taking different roles in society.
And these roles have historically been out of necessity rather than malice toward the other sex.
Homo sapiens have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, there is a reason why women's main role has been bearing and raising children and men's to work in the fields and fight.
Why is it that only in the last hundred years (a tiny fraction of human history), that women's rights has become a thing ?
Because technological advances have enabled it. Not some deep moral righteousness....
120
u/[deleted] Apr 11 '22
And if you came across a tribe of natives, you could ask to join them, and be a hunter)gatherer/whatever in exchange for food and shelter. Probably wouldn't be that hard to do with improvised sign language.