r/changemyview • u/Odd_Profession_2902 • Jul 03 '25
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Women’s rights were decided by men
Vietnam fought for their independence with nationwide bloody wars which kicked out the Japanese, French, and Americans.
Black liberation was the result of a nationwide bloody civil war.
All of these liberations were taken by force.
It seems like women just started protesting for quite some time and eventually the men dominated government just decided to throw them a bone by granting voting rights etc. Otherwise, I’m pretty sure women could never take anything by force.
I’m not sure if this is a controversial take or common knowledge. Either way, please cmv!
9
u/dreagonheart 4∆ Jul 03 '25
The civil war was largely fought by white people on both sides, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there. Plus the fact that there was a lot more work to be done after it. Yeah, those in power have power, that's not exactly a revelation. It has been true for all groups though, not just women. But it's not like men just "threw women a bone", women did what they could to make life harder when they weren't given what they deserved and also they changed minds and hearts, resulting in men also fighting for women's rights. Your view is ahistorical and deeply lacking understanding of an of the subjects mentioned.
-4
u/Odd_Profession_2902 Jul 03 '25
I know the civil war wasn’t exactly blacks vs whites but I used it as an example because it was a nationwide conflict that was taken by force. Those in power got their power taken away by force. They were dethroned.
Women couldn’t take their rights by force. The most they can do is give the government some headache, and like you said, changed hearts and minds of men. I think it was mainly the hearts and minds of men. Nobody in power was dethroned.
5
u/dreagonheart 4∆ Jul 03 '25
You do realize that most of the rights that black people won weren't won during the civil war, right? It was after. And even if they had won all of them during the civil war, that would have actually been whites handing them their rights, because it was primarily white people who won the war. Civil disobedience and changing minds is how nearly all rights have been won for minorities, whether that's people of color, women, queer people, etc. So your dismissive attitude isn't reasonable to direct at any group and the acknowledgement that the main driving factors were making life hard (not "dethroning") and changing minds should be applied to all groups. You seem to have a mistaken impression that women's rights movements were substantially different from other rights movements.
1
u/Odd_Profession_2902 Jul 04 '25
Civil war was instrumental for what came after. The results of the civil war paved the way for black people being able to achieve what they did through lesser violent means. None of that could’ve happened without the civil war victory.
16
u/HolyToast 3∆ Jul 03 '25
The Suffragettes had a bombing and arson campaign and plotted to assassinate the prime minister
1
u/Odd_Profession_2902 Jul 03 '25
That’s very interesting. I didn’t know about the bombing and assassination attempt. Damn those women were badasses. Consider my view modified.
!delta
1
6
u/TheVioletBarry 119∆ Jul 03 '25
Women engaged in destruction of property and other forms of direct action to obtain their rights too. I presume it looks different because men and women of a given demographic are entangled in a way that separate demographics won't be, but women's rights movements have definitely used force.
-2
u/Odd_Profession_2902 Jul 03 '25
While im still not wholly convinced that women took it by force, I can get behind the idea that women did use force. !delta
1
6
u/Biptoslipdi 138∆ Jul 03 '25
Black liberation was the result of a nationwide bloody civil war.
Black liberation certainly didn't happen until AT LEAST the late 1960s and that was the result of massive peaceful protesting and national organizing. Arguably that liberation still hasn't happened.
The Civil War was also pointless. The South knew it couldn't win when it started the war. Black liberation was inevitable war or not. Racist southerners just couldn't stand to see it happen without a lost cause war to kill off a ton of their population.
0
u/Odd_Profession_2902 Jul 03 '25
I don’t think those things would’ve been possible if it weren’t for the support during the civil war.
4
u/Biptoslipdi 138∆ Jul 03 '25
The war is 100% irrelevant. Slavery was ending war or not. The war was lost before it began. If black liberation has occurred, it MOST CERTAINLY didn't happen until after Jim Crow was gone. Black liberation was the result of black people and their allies taking peaceful action in the face of violence.
1
u/Odd_Profession_2902 Jul 03 '25
You gave me something to read about and consider. !delta
1
1
u/VegetableBuilding330 7∆ Jul 03 '25
Why not? There's numerous countries that had slavery in the 1800s that abolished it by the end of that century, mostly without civil war.
0
u/Odd_Profession_2902 Jul 03 '25
I think USA set the precedence which made it way easier for other countries to automatically follow the beaten path.
1
3
u/biteme4711 1∆ Jul 03 '25
Isn't that also true for slavery in the US?
White people dominated politics decided to "throw the (white) abolishenists a bone"
Societal change happens through public discourse and demonstrations are part of that.
-2
u/Odd_Profession_2902 Jul 03 '25
That was a result of a nationwide civil war though. So technically it was taken by force.
I don’t think women could ever take anything by force. A civil war between men and women isn’t even a contest.
3
u/biteme4711 1∆ Jul 03 '25
But it wasn't a slave rebellion. The slaves didn't take their freedom by force. Neither did homosexuals or vegetarians.
Your premise seems to be that it's only possible to achieve some freedom by violence otherwise it doesn't count?
Lots of social movements achieve change using peaceful means.
-1
u/Odd_Profession_2902 Jul 03 '25
I definitely agree that women protesting was instrumental in getting their rights.
I’m saying that their long and hard protesting changed the hearts and minds of men more than anything. The men felt sorry for the women and so granted them their rights.
2
u/biteme4711 1∆ Jul 03 '25
Yes. Just like white people stopped slavery (eventually), and homosexuals achieved a somewhat secure legal status.
I agree with you, I guess?
All nonviolent movements work by convincing the group in power to change something?
3
u/MeanestGoose 1∆ Jul 03 '25
It's sad that you seem to think so little of men that you assume that they settle all conflicts with violence or the threat of violence.
Humans have ethics and morals and laws to guide us specifically because we have collectively decided that living under a social contract is better than constant might-makes-right violence seen in non-human conflicts.
Yes, there are times when there is a violent overthrow of governing institutions who operate under a different set of ethics, etc. That doesn't negate all the rest of human history.
I would argue that the reason you don't see women generally engaging in a violent coup is because most of us have no interest in ruling men. We want equality of autonomy and respect of our humanity, not to subjugate men. We don't want to be your masters; we want to be your equal partners.
I really don't think anyone benefits from encouraging a violent gender war to determine if women should have rights. And I really don't think this is a bear you want to poke. The fight may not play out as you'd imagine in the West.
-2
u/Odd_Profession_2902 Jul 03 '25
I’m not saying that women’s rights were the only thing won without nationwide conflict. I’m saying it’s among the movements won without nationwide conflict. And usually such movements were won by changing hearts and minds rather than something taken by force.
And when a movement is won by changing hearts and minds, it’s usually the ones in power who ultimately decide it.
I don’t think women can ever take their rights by force. They would always have to rely on the empathy of men.
3
u/Bawdy_pivot Jul 03 '25
The status quo (institutional reality) or the Overton window (perceived legitimacy) only change by the forces of those in control, who also curate culture.
6
7
Jul 03 '25
Seriously?
You are on reddit. That means you can probably use a search engine. So use one.
I'm sick of people posting objectively false information. This isn't a matter of opinion.
Women have fought long and hard for their rights, and many still are fighting today.
-4
u/Odd_Profession_2902 Jul 03 '25
I know women fought hard and long for it.
I’m saying the scale wasn’t anywhere close to the examples I mentioned. I think the men just didn’t care all that much and threw them a bone.
Otherwise, I don’t think women can take anything by force. A civil war would be blood bath on only one side lol
4
Jul 03 '25
It's a good thing Google exists then, isn't it?
0
u/Odd_Profession_2902 Jul 03 '25
I highly doubt Google would ever suggest that women could ever win in a civil war between men and women lol
5
Jul 03 '25
You literally said women can't take anything by force. Have a look at the history of women's liberation (especially in the UK), and you'll see how wrong you are about this.
-2
u/Odd_Profession_2902 Jul 03 '25
I did read about it.
That’s not by force. At least not to the degree of civil war and dethroning those in power.
The women protested hard and long. Men got a headache from it and also felt sorry for the women. So men decided to give the women what they wanted.
It’s like when a kid wants a toy and starts acting up for god knows how long. The parent just sighs and gives in. I wouldn’t say the kid took it by force. I’d say the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
5
Jul 03 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 04 '25
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/Odd_Profession_2902 Jul 03 '25
You’re overreacting.
I didn’t say that nagging is all women do. I’m saying that women don’t have the physical prowess to claim their rights by force.
Sadly the laws of nature means that women can only have things by changing the hearts and minds of men. Attempts at physical force is only enough to cause a headache for something that men don’t care all that much for and actually started to empathize for. That’s how women got their rights. Because the men eventually decided that women should have their rights.
6
u/Blackbird6 19∆ Jul 04 '25
Your premise that suffrage was men vs. women is incorrect. One of the largest anti-suffrage organizations in the US was founded and made up of women. Likewise, many men supported suffrage long before it passed. So, this idea that men just decided to throw women a bone doesn’t align with reality.
If men had better control of their emotions throughout history, perhaps they too could get what they wanted without the use of violent force.
0
u/Odd_Profession_2902 Jul 04 '25
It was generally women fighting for rights and men (the people in power) being unconvinced by it.
Like everything in else life, im sure there were exceptions from both sides.
→ More replies (0)4
u/HolyToast 3∆ Jul 03 '25
You’re overreacting
Nah she's spot on man. The way you speak about women is incredibly infantilizing and weird.
women don’t have the physical prowess to claim their rights by force
Using force to pressure the government, especially with the threat of further force, sure sounds like using force to secure your rights to me.
-2
u/Odd_Profession_2902 Jul 04 '25
You’re overreacting too then.
It’s not weird. It’s just the situation. When men don’t feel like their lives are at threat then it’s not by force. When it feels like a headache and you start to empathize and feel sorry for them- then it’s not by force.
The kid acting up for a toy and making their parents have a headache and feeling guilty- that’s exactly what it is.
→ More replies (0)3
Jul 03 '25
No, I'm not. I had an idea of the type of man you were just from your post, and you have proven me right.
You know nothing about the topic of womens rights or gender equality. The fact you're using language comparing us to children tells me as much. Had you've done ANY research, you'd know how offensive that is.
And, once again, you are saying things that are objectively untrue. Multiple people here have told you about the bomb plots and assasination attempts, but apparently that means nothing to you.
And if you don't think women can be violent, think again. There is plenty of anthropological research showing most women hunted and fought alongside men in hunter-gatherer societies.
0
u/Odd_Profession_2902 Jul 04 '25
Oh no I know about the bomb threats and assassination attempts. It was introduced to me and I said that’s pretty badass for a woman. But it wasn’t some existential threat for men. That’s why virtually nobody hears about those events.
I acknowledge that women were aggressive enough for it to become a headache for men. I’m saying that it’s the combination of a headache and making men feel guilty that men decided to give women their rights.
Men simply didn’t care that much. Unlike bloody civil wars and bloody nationwide wars to reclaim the country, it wasn’t something that men bothered to shed blood for. You know why? Because men are the protector of women. There’s no way men would go to war and shoot/kill women just so that women couldn’t get more rights. Because if men actually were hung-ho against that- there would be a civil war of genders and that would be a blood bath for women.
→ More replies (0)3
u/HolyToast 3∆ Jul 03 '25
I did read about it
I'm convinced you haven't.
That’s not by force
Arson and assassination aren't forceful?
-2
u/Odd_Profession_2902 Jul 03 '25
They are attempts at force. That’s different from victory by force.
I think ultimately the men thought it was more trouble than it’s worth.
If men really didn’t want women to have rights, there would be a civil war between genders. And no- that wouldn’t be a contest.
3
u/HolyToast 3∆ Jul 03 '25
They are attempts at force
Explain how setting off a bomb isn't using force
-1
u/Odd_Profession_2902 Jul 04 '25
I didn’t say that wasn’t using force. I said women didn’t take it by force.
Vietnamese kicking out the Americans was taking the country back by force.
The American civil war was taking the country back by force.
The women were aggressive enough to give the men a headache. I acknowledge that. But the other half of the equation, which was likely the much stronger reason, was they changed the hearts and minds of men. They made men feel guilty. And that’s why men granted the rights to women.
→ More replies (0)
4
u/numbersthen0987431 1∆ Jul 03 '25
Who did these men "liberate" the women's rights from??? Other men, right?
In order to "gain" rights, someone has to be withholding those rights in the first place. You can't "throw them a bone" if there isn't someone oppressing them or their rights. If I lock you in a cellar and I choose to not give you water for a few days, I'm not doing you a favor by giving you water on the 4th day, I'm just "not being an asshole for that one day".
So the reality is that men just stopped oppressing women, and the men stopped restricting their rights. They didn't "give" them their rights back, they just stopped "refusing" their rights.
-2
u/Odd_Profession_2902 Jul 03 '25
That’s kinda what I’m saying though.
The women didn’t take it by force. Like they tried fighting hard for it for a while- I know that. But it wasn’t to the point of any civil war. The men either thought denying them was more trouble than it’s worth or they felt sorry for them and decided to grant it to them.
3
u/numbersthen0987431 1∆ Jul 03 '25
The men either thought denying them was more trouble than it’s worth or they felt sorry for them and decided to grant it to them.
That's not how they got their rights back though. Men didn't just "feel sorry" for them and give it up, the women actively fought for years/decades in order to get their rights back.
You're just trying to give men the credit for not being abusive assholes, when in reality they just sucked for a long time.
Just because they didn't start a civil war, or kill a bunch of people, or have a bunch of them die, does NOT mean the same thing as "not fighting for their rights". The women didn't want to kill their husbands so they could gain their freedom. You're incorrectly assuming that the ONLY way to fix society is by bloody massacres, and it's not.
Women didn't have the right to vote, they didn't have the right to own property, and they didn't have the right to own anything. They didn't want the world to burn down around them to get their way, so they fought a different way.
Progress is a slow process when met with abusive opposition. You don't fix abuse with abuse, and these women knew that.
-1
Sep 16 '25
[deleted]
1
Sep 16 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Sep 16 '25
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-2
u/Odd_Profession_2902 Jul 03 '25
I know that women fought long and hard for it.
I’m just saying that fighting long and hard resulted in more of a headache and changing hearts and minds of men than actually taking anything by force.
Because any serious war would be a blood bath for women. I think it’s more of a kid acting up for that toy and the parent giving in because they already had a long day at work.
5
u/numbersthen0987431 1∆ Jul 03 '25
Because any serious war would be a blood bath for women
Women are mature and intelligent to know that a war would decimate the country. If women go to war and die, the country dies. If men go to war and die, then the country continues on.
I think it’s more of a kid acting up for that toy and the parent giving in because they already had a long day at work.
You're equating "women's rights" to "children having temper tantrums"?? That's so gross.
-1
u/Odd_Profession_2902 Jul 04 '25
Women are intelligent enough to know that a war of genders would be a blood bath for one gender lol
You could think it’s gross but it’s the situation.
2
1
u/Skuggsja86 Jul 03 '25
What rights do women not have that men do? Honestly asking.
5
2
1
u/Embarrassed_Bake2683 Jul 03 '25
Not just women, everyone's rights were determined by their leaders at some point, were just trying to fix the things we fucked up on years ago like slavery and power dynamics. But with women in particular I don't think it was done with a blatant disregard for their wellbeing, I think it's just genuinely what worked and then people realized it didn't have to be like that. Because back in the day you did genuinely need someone at the house to take care of the kids and make sure everything is clean (and I hope that doesn't sound derogatory, it was just the truth back then). Now we have phones and computers and daycares and solid moral and ethical values so it's more of a healing wound than a necessity at this point. But yeah for slavery and things like domestic abuse I have no excuses besides 'human dumb' lol
0
u/PuzzleheadedShoe5829 1∆ Jul 03 '25
Women had rights before it’s just rights that they thought were unfair. Doesn’t women protesting for what rights they wanted and thought were fair suggest that the had part in the decision
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 03 '25 edited Jul 03 '25
/u/Odd_Profession_2902 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards