The same asinine re-interpretation and selective editing of history. Historical absence as proof of discrimination. Marxist oppression narratives. Trannies took the playbook of patriarchy theory and ran with it. Be it the debate about white/black differences, patriarchy, or trannies -- it's always the same tired nonsense.

You idiots did this to yourselves. They are completely consistent with your bullshit. The only way you have managed to argue against the tranny nonsense is capitulate, in your usual half-assed fashion, to some of the biological realities that exist between men and women, and even there only as far as serves you to rehabilitate the remains of your bullshit patriarchy theory.

Some more interesting bits:

"As against her husband, the law confers on a woman who has married him the unilateral privilege of main- tenance. The earlier law made this privilege dependent on her obedience, cohabitation with her husband, and her observance of outwardly decent behaviour. The present law has set her free from all these restraints. Since 1857 the Secular Courts which then assumed juris- diction in matrimonial matters, has given up all attempt to enforce obedience, but' the most violent methods, in- cluding imprisonment and sequestration of the property of the husband are employed to enforce her claim to maintenance. By a recent Statute (the Act of 1884) the process of imprisonment to make a wife obey an order to return to her husband was abolished. By the famous decision in the Jackson Case the husband was prohibited from himself using force to compel her to return. But the deserted wife by magisterial order can get her desert- ing husband sent to gaol. And neither legislature nor the Courts, which took away her duties of obedience and cohabitation, ever dreamt of depriving her of her privilege of being maintained by the man whom she can flout and insult with impunity. As a successful lady litigant (May, 1896) remarked to her husband, ** There is no law which compels me to obey or honour you, but there is a law that you must keep me." This woman tersely sums up the position."

Is it really that obvious that one gender was oppressed at the expense of the other? A deeper reading of history makes it less obvious the more you read.

It also does not matter what opinion you have on the particular source of these laws. All of them can be independently verified and where they are misrepresented, you are welcome to comment your corrections. Many other countries have -- or still have, in the case of India and others -- similar laws on the books.

I am neither on the side of people who say women were oppressed, nor am I that sure that the people who then run to the opposite extreme are correct. As a man, you have an amount of body strength that is easy to abuse against the vast majority of women. As a woman in society, you have many social protections in place that men have a harder time accessing. Patriarchy theory pretends that the supposed oppression of women is a modern thing and that we used to live in a state of egalitarianism in times prior. This could not be bigger nonsense. If anything, before modern society the biological advantages of men over women, which are some of the most obvious among all sex differences, would have been exacerbated. It is with modern society that women have been able to join a relatively equal footing with men, in an increasing range of occupations and social functions. Patriarchy theory, as most of feminist bullshit, is a complete inversion of history, putting common sense and facts on their head. It contradicts everything we know of history and it contradicts everything we know about biology or what we can intuit from everyday knowledge about men and women. The only women, and feminist men, who could be this far removed from reality are the ones so deranged from healthy social interaction that they probably rarely witness normal interactions between men and women.