The History Of Men
I once posted up an excerpt from a book by Tom Holland which described
the rebellion against the Romans of Spartacus and the slaves.
And I received an email asking me why I had posted up such a piece
given that it did not appear to have very much to do with feminism.
Interesting and genuinely helpful take on history - but has Davros nicked the
keys to your Tardis?
Where are you my friend? We are missing you!
Come back to the here and now and resume 'exterminating' the evil of 21st
Well, I have tried to explain why I have disappeared into the past, but,
clearly, to no avail. And so for my less able readers - of which, clearly, there
are many! - I shall expand.
Firstly, I have been reading a lot recently
Firstly, I have been reading a lot recently; e.g. Rubicon by Tom Holland, The
God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, The World At War by Niall Ferguson, and
Critical Mass by Phillip Ball. The first is about the Roman Republic, the second
about the existence of God, the third about the last century's wars, and the
fourth about the theories of physics being applied to the social sciences. And in
each and every one of them there is, somewhere, a passing reference - or
a snide, unqualified remark - suggesting some sort of notion that
women in the past were treated worse than men.
there is no comparison made between the treatments of
'men' and 'women'
In all the cases, however, there is - as is typical - no attempt whatsoever
even to justify this notion and - needless to say - there is no comparison made
between the treatments of 'men' and 'women'. It is simply taken as a given
fact that women had it worse.
And, in Richard Dawkins' case, it seems clear to me that such references are
merely designed to ingratiate himself to a feminist, 'liberal' audience. So
transparent is this, that I actually found his book to be rather embarrassing.
(These references of his had nothing to do with his central arguments. They were just add-ons -
as if he was trying to say, "Look. I support feminist ideology. So I must
be a good fellow, even though I do not believe in a God.")
In a nutshell; you have all these different popular authors - two
scientists and two historians - endorsing the view that women had it worse, and
this view is taken as fact. There is no attempt to justify this
view, and no attempt to look at how men were being treated at the
same time that, allegedly, women had it worse.
For example, ...
When two of his legions, in direct contradiction of his orders,
engaged with Spartacus and suffered yet another defeat, Crassus' response
was to resurrect the ancient and terrible punishment of decimation. Every
tenth man was beaten to death, the obedient along with the disobedient,
the brave along with the cowardly, while their fellows were forced to
These were his very own soldiers!
Did women ever have to undergo such appalling treatment by their
And there are countless examples throughout the whole of history
wherein the men have been butchered and murdered while the women have been
I should stress that none of these books makes a big issue out of 'gender',
and that the references to women's allegedly worse treatment are few and far
between. Put them all together and you would only get about three or four pages
of text to do with the issue - most of it coming from Dawkins.
So, out of
about 1700 pages in total, this notion that women were treated worse does not,
in fact, get much of an airing. But the point is that this notion is being endorsed
by highly influential authors - without any real thought being given to the
And so, My Dear P, when you plead that I should, "Come back to the here and now and resume 'exterminating' the evil of 21st century feminism!"
this is exactly what I am doing.
These authors are 21st Century authors. And they are parroting and
disseminating feminist propaganda without any real thought.
Their confusion, presumably, arises because it is men, mostly, who have
perpetrated various heinous acts throughout history, but what they fail to
understand is that these heinous acts were mostly directed against men.
And so when it comes to the question of who was treated worse, men or women, the
correct answer is men.
But these lofty authors seem too stupid to see this.
I would have no objection to them, or anyone, complaining about the relatively worse
behaviours of men from the past - well, certain men - in comparison to women -
as a whole - but they do not do this. Their focus when it comes to gender, if
any, always seems to be one wherein they end up implying that women had it
But this is simply not true.
And, of course, the same happens today.
a. No-one notices that it is men who keep getting the short end of the stick.
Indeed, male victims are quickly disappeared out of sight.
b. It is still mostly men - e.g. politicians - who are causing men their
In other words, nothing has really changed.
(Indeed, while this site often gets criticised for being 'misogynistic' by
empty headed feminists, the
truth is that its more vitriolic venom is mostly directed towards men -
politicians, judges, police officers, academics etc.)
Despite their lofty status they clearly cannot
see the difference between perpetrators and victims.
And I think that it is extremely important that the blind stupidity of lofty
authors such as these is exposed. Despite their lofty status they clearly cannot
see the difference between perpetrators and victims. Or, maybe it is the case
that they can, in fact, see the difference, but that they are simply far less
concerned about any victims when they are male.
Male victims do not count.
Whichever is the case, however, they do not have a leg to stand on when they
claim that women were treated worse than men.
The evidence is entirely against them - both historically and now.
Secondly, over and over and over again, you will hear people justifying the
current feminist agenda and rhetoric on the grounds that women were treated
worse 'for thousands of years'. They take this as a given fact; a fact that is
believed to be so well-established that it is no longer disputable - like the
existence of gravity. And they (e.g. the four authors above)
therefore feel no need to provide evidence for
this alleged fact.
And on the basis of this alleged fact, millions of people
currently justify wholesale discrimination against men.
But this is no fact, it is a feminist-fabricated falsehood.
A blatant lie.
And exposing this lie is extremely important for the men's movement;
because it is upon this lie that so many people base their
justification for pursuing a man-hating feminist agenda.
And until MRAs can scupper this widely-accepted notion that women have always
been treated worse than men they will find it much more difficult to make any
As such, the way in which men - ordinary men -
were treated throughout history is, like it or not, highly relevant to the current debates
associated with gender.
Furthermore, the way I see it, the 'rulers' have always managed to accrue
their various lofty powers mostly by taking away from men. They have intimidated
them, controlled them, stolen from them, demonised them, enslaved them, taxed
them, conscripted them and/or
And the women were, more or less, left alone to get on with the
This is what you see throughout the WHOLE of history.
there is definitely some observable continuum between
the very poor treatment of men in the past and the poor treatment of men
Furthermore, there is definitely some observable continuum between the
very poor treatment of men in the past and the poor treatment of men today. And
I think that looking more closely at this continuum helps us to see more clearly
how it is that those who presume to rule over us today continue to
benefit themselves by doing to men what was done in the past.
The only major differences that I can see are, firstly, that the treatment of
men is nowadays not nearly as bad as it used to be, and, secondly, that it was
men from 'out-groups', rather than the indigenous men, who tended to be the targets of most of the mistreatment.
And so, for example, whereas the Romans conquered various demonised
'barbarian' tribes and forced them to pay heavy tributes to Rome, these days men are
conquered and demonised by their very own governments and they are forced to pay them huge amounts in
It's the same game!
Finally, when I have had conversations with people who immediately and
readily parrot the notion that "women have always been oppressed" and
I have pointed out that their oppression was nowhere nearly as bad as the
oppression of men, it does not usually take too long for them to understand what
I am saying.
Indeed, I once spoke about this to the feminist editor of a well-known
UK woman's magazine who had always viewed women as being the main victims
I kept pointing out to her that she was continually
confusing the perpetrators with the victims.
Yes, men were the main
oppressors, but other men were, by far, and in most areas of life, the
main victims of this oppression; e.g. see
What A Piece Of Sh*t Is Man
And within about ten minutes, she was actually beginning
to see that, maybe, she had been wrong in her judgement about this matter.
rather quick 'victory', and given that the notion that women have always been oppressed
worse than men seems to be an undisputable fact in
the eyes of many, it seems to me well worthwhile to shove into the consciousness
of my most magnificent readers various pieces of evidence that will help them to
scupper any notion that implies that women were treated worse than men.
something tells me that those pieces about the Battle of Alesia and the
rebellion of the slaves under Spartacus are far more likely to be remembered by MRAs
than are my various pontifications surrounding such issues.
Homer, in The Iliad
It is entirely appropriate for a young man killed in battle to lie mangled by the bronze spear. In his death, all things appear fair.
Ah yes. Those were the days when women had it so bad compared to men.
Spartacus - Shadow of the Gladiator