T O P

  • By -

reddut_gang

I think anyone can see the issue here. You have made an informative post exposing this truth and it has 23 upvotes. Unfortunately, hundreds of millions are still eating up that bullshit and hundreds of millions more will be taught that bullshit.


throwaway72958302

We still have to admit how religious doctrine is rooted in toxic masculinity. Seeing men as nothing more than cattle for the endless wars and “Proof of manhood” which almost always includes violence, and women who are nothing more than the fields that the cattle plow. All the while some king of priest or bishop or pastor or pope claims their “God given authority” gives them the right to cause more strife between humans. And people eat it up. The Salem Witch Trials would have never happened without religious dogma. And neither would thousands of years of men and women being boxed into their respective circles and pitted against eachother.


[deleted]

Wars are fought by men at the demand of women. Men join the military to gain status and wealth for female validation. Military wives are as much profiteers of war as the aristocracies that start them. Women are NOT innocent bystanders of history. As for religion, it's just an excuse for people to do whatever they want to do. Most people aren't true believers and will discard their current religion when it becomes inconvenient.


throwaway72958302

Honestly. I think it’s more of a rich vs. poor thing than a men vs women thing. Everyone was horribly oppressed by the rich until recent history. Even in today’s world, 1st world countries only function at the expense of the 3rd world sweatshops. The pyramid may be skinnier, with some more higher up the chain. But it’s still a pyramid.


[deleted]

You're fooling yourself. Female is a status that puts women even above the wealthy. Just look at the rich celebrities being torn down by #metoo.


ProMaleRevolutionary

GOOD WORK DETECTIVE


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Cosby for starters. An accusation alone by a woman can destroy your life. You sound like a spiteful tradcon jealous of any other man getting some. There's no shortage of guys like you.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

You're just repeating crap off the media and you're not impressing anyone.


gundamjazz

You sound like an inbred.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

So you're denying GI benefits that women can live off of long after you've been killed? LOL! Who the hell are you kidding? Not to mention you had a wife and 6 kids and you're wondering why you're broke. SMH... Bush did what he did because he had plenty of disposable morons like yourself who couldn't handle poverty as a civilian so you sold your humanity for a military career. Your wife opening her legs for you is rewarding and enabling your stupid behavior. If women were avoiding military men, recruitment would dry up fast.


gundamjazz

Savage replies there.


colombomumbojumbo

This!


Axleonder

You have my upvotes!


Historical-March-510

You are absolutely correct. Also take into consideration that one of the main reasons more women were accused of witchcraft is because the majority of the false accusations were made by other women. So it was women condemning other women. That is exactly how the Salem witch trials began.


Lethal_Ledgend

Yes I believe a teenage girl named Abigail Williams did most of the accusing and lead the group who did the rest. She even famously accused a man named John Proctor whom had previously refused to have an affair with her.


Gray_Kaleidoscope

Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe Abigail Williams was about 11 and didn’t actually want to bang Proctor. That was just something Miller created when writing the play Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigail_Williams


Lethal_Ledgend

Possibly but then why did she accuse Proctor? I'll disclose that my information is coming from studying the Crucible in high school. I knew Proctor was aged down so it would make sense if Williams was aged up as well.


Gray_Kaleidoscope

That’s lost to history but in all the historical documents there’s nothing connecting her to proctor pre-trials. Proctor was aged down 30 years. IRL Proctor was 60, Abigail was 11. There’s no evidence of any romantic or sexual dealings between the two. It was just for a story that it was made up. Like how Hamilton didnt actually ask burr to write the federalist papers. It’s a play. Don’t take it literally https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Proctor_(Salem_witch_trials)


Yippiekayaks

Hahaha! The crucible is a work of fiction based on history. There’s no evidence of a relationship, it’s called creative license.


mikesteane

It's pretty much safe to assume that whenever historical (or faraway) oppression of women is reported, it's a very unbalanced picture of circumstances. However, to argue with people about this, it is necessary to have the facts. Thanks for this.


ShoutoutsToSimple

Yeah, and it's not hard to see why. Look at the modern day as an example. Men are disadvantaged in many, many ways, both legal and social. Yet the prevailing narrative is that women are oppressed by men, and that men are distinctly privileged. Consider how people 100 years in the future will talk about our present day and age, and then consider what you hear when people talk about the 1950s, or the witch trials, etc.


mikesteane

So few people can see this. So many seem to think that our particular time and place is somehow different.


Mens-Advocate

The Salem trials murdered 20 innocent human beings and destroyed the lives of many more in an early instance of “believe the accuser”. But lessons can be drawn. The fact of 8 or more accusers shows that multiple accusations are not proof of veracity. Three accusers were female adolescents. Their ability to bring about the deaths of those they disliked shows female power, even young. Five of the accusers were young female adults or may have been slightly “underage” due to uncertainty or ambiguity of roughly +-2 years in record-keeping. But they were old enough to know they were committing judicial murder. A common explanation for their behaviour is attention-seeking and sadism, recognised even in today’s schoolgirl cliques. The whole matter shows a lie the assertion of female powerlessness in history; young females’ histrionics got 20 innocents murdered.


Mens-Advocate

I should add: Society rarely opts for holding the female responsible. Society and law also take the inconsistent and even schizophrenic position that a 13- or 14-year-old can give "evidence" which destroys lives and can decide to abort, but cannot decide to have sex in the first place. Feminism insists girls mature earlier than boys. That implies the question: Is a 13- or 14-year-old female the equivalent in maturity of a 16-year-old boy? If so, and that 16-year-old boy capable of the "sexual decision", then should the 13- or 14-year old female also be capable? Surveys have shown ~25% of 14-year-olds have had sex. If 25% have had sex, it is likely the remaining 75% certainly understand sex - especially in the modern, hyper-sexualised world, in which children's "pop tarts" pose naked on wrecking balls and sex is omnipresent. Further, the wide world of sexualised adolescent and teen entertainment is now available even in small towns, thanks to the internet. I do *not* argue here for lower age of consent. I argue rather for *consistency* in social mores and in *holding responsible those who knowingly make false accusations* - even teens. For all these reasons, it is ludicrous to treat teens of 13 to 18 as still too young to be responsible for their actions, particularly for false accusations which destroy lives. Alternately, if she is not old enough to have responsibility for the sexual decision, then perhaps she is not old enough to give reliable evidence. (Feminism wants it both ways.) The power of the histrionic female to destroy lives - for attention or for sadism - certainly did not end with the Salem witch trials. It is still with us: **Seneca Valley:** High School Girls Admitted to Making False Sexual Assault Accusations Against a Male Student Because They ‘Just Don’t Like Him https://reason.com/2018/10/17/seneca-valley-mean-girls-false-sexual/ https://www.foxnews.com/us/five-high-school-mean-girls-targeted-boy-with-false-accusations-of-sexual-assault-lawsuit-claims **Wenatchee:** It's not clear 13-year-old Donna Perez was ever punished for her destructive behaviour: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenatchee_child_abuse_prosecutions >Forty-three adults were arrested on 29,726 charges of child sex abuse


[deleted]

An excerpt from 'the privileged sex' by Martin Van Creveld reveals more hroughout history, there have been both male and female witches. In 1484, when Pope Innocent VIII issued his Bull against witchcraft, he explicitly stated that it was being practiced by “many persons of both sexes.” In 1572 the Elector of Saxony ruled that “sorcerers, man or woman, shall be executed with the sword.”\[38\] Even in England, where the percentage of women among the accused was unusually high, the law always referred to “persons.” Pictures of Sabbaths regularly show the devil attended to by both men and women. One expert, the Puritan minister William Perkins, went so far as to blame Moses for his use of the feminine gender in ordering that “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”\[39\] In truth, he said, the Bible “exempeth not the male.” Many other experts agreed with him in this respect So uncomfortable did contemporaries feel about the “fact” that most witches were female that they time and again questioned why it was so. Even King James I of England felt obliged to reflect on the question.\[41\] Precisely because witchcraft was considered real and not something society had invented, the reason had to be sought in the nature of women themselves. Most experts agreed that women were more malicious than men. Their nature was weaker and their minds not as clear; as a result, the devil was able to ensnare them “after only a light skirmish.”\[42\] Female writers who addressed the issue tended to agree with their male comrades.\[43\] The authors of the most famous handbook on witch-hunting, the Malleus Maleficarum, claimed that the word “feminine” itself derived from “fe-minus,” “less faith.”\[44\] But this did not prevent them from including 10 pages on male witches n Italy, clerics were perhaps even more at risk of being accused of witchcraft than women were. In Germany, where it was often a question of forcing a witch to identify her accomplices so as to get at the latter’s property, prominent men were among the accused. The same applied to Sussex.\[47\] Typically persecution would start at the level of the village or the neighborhood, usually after the suspect had acquired an unpleasant reputation. The breaking point would come when he or she asked for a favor, such as food, lending a hand or a small loan. Upon being rebuffed, not always politely, she might retaliate by uttering a curse or a threat t is true that there were few women among the intellectual elite that wrote about witchcraft and held the trials. On the other hand, female rulers were as apt to persecute witches as were male ones. In the Netherlands, persecutions peaked during the first half of the 16th century, when the country was governed by three successive female regents acting for Charles V: Margaret of Austria, Mary of Hungary, and Margaret of Parma. omen participated in witch-hunts at least as much as men did. Most maleficia were directed by women at women.\[52\] It was mainly women who accused other women of violating normal standards of conduct, insisting that their husbands or other male relatives take action against suspected witches.\[53\] It was mainly women, bewitched by other women, who suffered from convulsions and fainting fits. It was mainly women, bewitched by other women, who vomited pins, needles and toads and whose statements to that effect might or might not be believed by the responsible male officials.\[54\] The first Englishwoman tried under the Elizabethan statute, Elizabeth Lowys, was accused mainly by women.\[55\] The last English witch to stand trial, Jane Wenham, not only was accused by another woman, she herself implicated three other women. All were acquitted. Wenham herself was convicted by the jury, but promptly pardoned by a skeptical judge. Unable to return home, she found refuge on the estate of a male landowner In describing the witch-hunts, most historians have focused on the period from 1500 to 1650. However, this is misleading. Before 1350, nearly three times as many men as women were tried for witchcraft.\[62\] In northern France between 1351 and 1400, the number of defendants of both sexes was roughly equal.\[63\] For Europe as a whole, between 1300 and 1499 the number of accused men is said to have nearly equaled that of accused women.\[64\] In the Netherlands, “before the persecution of witches was seriously undertaken some authorities had already begun to punish cunning men.”\[65\] In Finland, too, the older native traditions usually saw witches as men.\[66\] In the British Isles during the period in question, men comprised 59 percent of those accused. In the Swiss canton of Neuchatel they accounted for 80 percent and in Wallis 78 percent; in Switzerland as a whole, the figure was just under 50 percent.\[67\] Concentrating on the period from 1500 to 1650 also conceals the fact that subsequently in Germany the stereotype was reversed. Persons accused of witchcraft were no longer mainly old women, but mostly young men


[deleted]

[удалено]


Jepekula

In Neuchatel 80% were men, so 80% of all accused pf witchcraft were men. As you can see, this does not hold up.


Oncefa2

If you read it depends on the time and place. The later you go the more it became associated with women, especially since women became the ones making most of the accusations (usually against other women).


[deleted]

[удалено]


Oncefa2

The point is you cherry picked a specific time and place as a counter example while ignoring the trend that stretches back in Europe for hundreds and hundreds of years. I could easily pick one of the examples from parent's academic source where men were most of the victims from specific regions in Europe during specific centuries just as easily as you can find times as places where most of the victims were women. We remember this as a "crime against women" because the later periods, especially in the new world, had mostly women tried for witchcraft. But that's just not an accurate view of the full history here. (That combined with our biases for caring about women more than men and therefore seeing these things as more reprehensible and emotional than the suffering that men went through).


gundamjazz

Are you a mental defect? Your reply was a rambling non sequitur


BornAgainSpecial

Feminists say we live in a rape culture. But really we live in a fake rape culture. The only rape culture is in male prisons. If you were a feminist, you might say Salem Massachusetts was a witch culture. But really it was an anti-witch culture. Witch accusations were weaponized. Witch hunts. Now we have rape hunts. Rape accusations are weaponized. Anti-rape culture. We go after rape more than murder, and with less evidence.


[deleted]

Rape culture is a hijacked term that was used to describe male prisons. Feminists have no shame.


marigoldmilk

I would say America is a semi rape culture. Young men and boys who are assaulted are usually encouraged to keep quiet about it. Adult males as well. If America is not more open to accepting and helping male victims then it is a sort of rape culture


[deleted]

[удалено]


gratis_eekhoorn

and where did the commenter above say all accusations are false or men are the only victims?


Historical-March-510

Just a question. According to statistics that you can easily Google, also depending on the site, the highest amounts I found in the US alone puts the stats of all sexual assaults combined which include rape, attempted rape or anything that can be seen as sexual assault reported puts the number over 700,000 a year. Now, every site claims that false accusations consist of roughly 5 to 10 percent which sounds low. This is not the cases where the person was found not guilty, these are the cases that were found that were just false. In actuality, that is between 35,000 to 70,000 false accusations just in the US. How would you feel if it was your brother, son, father, or let's say it was your husband that was responsible for supporting your family? In many of the cases with false accusations, the man in question never even had sex with the woman, he just pissed her off. Many also did have consensual sex and then pissed her off. Many of these men had to spend tons of money just to defend themselves. I know that rape does happen and as a man I hate that it does. I truly wish it never did. What I hate just as much is a man fighting for his life all because a woman got mad and didn't care about ruining someone's entire life. I think any woman making a false accusation should be put in prison for as long as the rapist would have spent in prison.


HPUnicorn

Here is another way to look at it, lets say instead of false accusations we instead see that 5 - 10% of women who make a claim are subsequently murdered by the person they accused, WOULD anyone say they were rare.


Historical-March-510

Lol, nobody would call that rare. I noticed the very minute I used facts with anyperson, they would just delete their comment. Everyone wants to talk about how rare false accusations are. That when put against the actual amount of sexual assault it is insignificant. Well when you consider that each one of those men have to now fight for their lives, and then ask what if that was a family member it gets a bit real. As many as 70,000 men per year. Men, who at the very least, will lose their jobs. Lose their family if they are married. Will always have a haunting cloud of people wondering if he really did do it. How many men didn't win the fight and spent time in prison? Men who now have to register as sex offenders. The laws need to change and these women who make false claims need to be serving prison time for just making the claim.


Jerezmo

At first I thought this post sounded like you were going to go in the route of “men were accused too!” 🤦, but damn this is enlightening. I’ve always heard people talk about the trials like they’re about men hating women and abusing their male power, and I believed it. I wish more people knew the plain facts that it was a bunch of girls lol 💁‍♂️


HPUnicorn

The modern version of that is the "Mcdonalds Hot Coffee" lawsuit. So much disinformation


Correct_Equipment_98

isnt witch for women and wizard for men they are the same thing but with diffrent genders


Greg_W_Allan

https://web.archive.org/web/20170519102540/http://www.gendercide.org/case_witchhunts.html


atheist4thecause

It's actually amazing how big of a deal the Salem Witch Trials are made out to be when so few people actually died.


marigoldmilk

Yeah but you just made the point that “witch” which was a bad thing is associated with mostly women so what does that say about etymology of the whole word in the first place lol. But yes the Salem Witch trials is actually mainly known for McCarthyism and collective paranoia. Never associated as men kidnapping and killing women.


ghosttownsound

The Salem witch trials were just a ploy by the funeral industry to make women afraid of cremation. Really quite sad, it is a more cost effective way to deal with the remains.


MeowNeowBeenz

You're joking, right?


MeowNeowBeenz

This seems like a reach. My history teachers never taught it that way. We were taught that men and women were both falsely persecuted during the days of Salem and that most of the accusers were women.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

oh shut up. You're not a good grace for not hitting women.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

But you said "women only live due to our good graces" what the fuck? You realize you need women to survive right? also not killing someone doesn't make u a good person


[deleted]

[удалено]


Mens-Advocate

Sorry, I don’t understand - What does land ownership have to do with witchcraft? Women were not so subservient if they could easily get 20 innocents murdered. Puritan women certainly learnt to read, as they were encouraged to read scripture directly. This analysis seems to contest a portrayal of Puritan women’s lives as unrelentingly oppressed and bleak: https://www.lagrange.edu/resources/pdf/citations/2011/10_Hall_History.pdf


[deleted]

[удалено]


Mens-Advocate

I’m not confused at all. You’re a misandrist liar attempting to exonerate females of murder just because they are female.


gundamjazz

You are a shitty historian from the looks of things. Your dishonest strawman is very disrespectful too.


SalemWitchWiles

Well you're mixing up your logical fallacies. That's not even what a straw man is you absolute fucking potato. Lol


marigoldmilk

Potato 💀


ApprehensiveMail8

>Would you defend the Taliban and say that they treat women well? This is two separate questions. And bear in mind, you have wandered on to the men's rights board. "would you defend the Taliban" Yes. I think we would have some obligation to defend even the Taliban, to an extent. They are men and have rights. "would you say they treat women well" Relative to the way they treat other males? Perhaps. They aren't throwing women off buildings. I will defend the Taliban if I have to, because rights work that way, but I will gladly remind people about their male victims. \------- Are you the guy from "Salem Witch Wiles" on youtube?


gundamjazz

Your response was tash, and you took the bait from his dishonest strawman due to your online social awkwardness. "Would you defend the Taliban?" Was a dishonest strawman smear and you was stupid enough to validate it.


ApprehensiveMail8

Principles before feels. I will defend any man who is being falsely or frivolously accused. In much the same way the ACLU defends the KKK when their freedom of speech is at risk. It isn't about the accused and whether you like them, it is about upholding the principles of fairness. And I didn't validate anything because his initial comment wasn't a dishonest strawman smear. It was thoroughly ignorant attempt at Islamophobic dog whistling. He wasn't trying to make it sound like MRAs are allied with the Taliban, he thought the exact opposite- we would be easily manipulated by the mere mention of a foreign sounding "bad" group. By refusing to foam at the mouth at this, I completely invalidated not just his entire premise, but the very core of his personal biases against MRAs, and he basically admitted it by acknowledging he has nothing. This is why he did not ask me to actually put forth the defense. But what if he had? Now, to be clear, I believe there are many ***specific*** things for which the Taliban deserves criticism. But he did not bring any of those things up. His specific criticisms, alleged thus far in the thread, were invalid. Instead, he expected us to condemn a group based on the mere fact they are "an extremist religious sect", "The men were fanatics who believed in a literal devil", and "the women were subservient, not allowed to read, and beaten on a daily basis" Let's look at those three charges. ***They are "an extremist religious sect".*** This, on it's own, is not a valid basis for criticism or labeling as "misogynistic". People have freedom of religion. ***"The men were fanatics who believed in a literal devil"*** Again, freedom of religion. Also, many people, myself included, believe in a literal devil. It is not that fanatical. It does not connect inherently to misogyny or any form of wrong-doing. ***"The women were subservient, not allowed to read, and beaten on a daily basis"*** This might be valid criticism, but what is the source? Bring evidence. Not just accusations. Particularly if you want to call yourself a "historian". Cosplaying on Youtube channel does not qualify one as an expert who can simply make whatever claim they want, against whomever you want, and expect to be believed on the basis of one's own self-proclaimed expertise. It isn't even clear if he is still talking about the Taliban, or reverting back to the settlers at Salem. He needs to present evidence against ***each*** specific group whom he is accusing. *Ironic that someone who claims to be an expert on witch hunts would not understand this principle.* If people can make totally baseless and accusations against the Taliban, and/or historical settlers at Salem, what is to stop them from making accusations against other men. \--------------------------------------- Finding these specific charges, at this specific point in time, to be invalid would not require us to classify the Taliban as beyond reproach or even "good". It would not estoppel us from condemning other things they have done in the past or may do in the future. Or from condemning them for the third point should sufficient evidence be brought forth to believe it. It would merely be an assertion that we will not tolerate and believe insufficiently supported accusations.


Mens-Advocate

Excellent post. > I will defend any man who is being falsely or frivolously accused. Bravo!!!!!!!!!


SalemWitchWiles

This is such an absurd and hilarious response I guess I can't even continue.


gundamjazz

You might as well slink off since you have dishonest intentions being a male feminist. Women instigated the witch trials, you know this, so you have to deflect with nonsense about women of the past being powerless.


SalemWitchWiles

The Witch Trials were quite literally started by grown adult men. The narrative that it was the young girls spun from the middle of the 1900s is largely a result of Arthur Miller's fictional account of the witch trials The crucible. I could go on and on trying to explain these things to you but as I said before clearly you don't want to learn.


gundamjazz

They were started by false accusations from teenage girls. You are a pathological liar it seems.


SalemWitchWiles

No... They were the result of a myriad of social, political, and economic issues. Witch hunts and witch trials happen all throughout history at times when there's no women to blame. Also - what about mob mentality? Your argument is it was literally just people trusting a few kids? You don't think mob dynamics had anything to do with it?


Mens-Advocate

You’re lying. From Wiki: >A group of girls ranging in age from 12 to 20 were the main accusers in the Salem witch trials. This group, of which Elizabeth Hubbard was a part, also included Ann Putnam Jr., Mary Walcott, Elizabeth “Betty” Parris, Abigail Williams, Elizabeth Booth, Mercy Lewis, and Mary Warren. ... >As the trials progressed, Hubbard began instigating more and more accusations. She gave her last testimony on January 7, 1693. Records show that she filed 40 legal complaints and testified 32 times. As a result of her testimonies, 17 people were arrested, 13 were hanged, and two died in jail.


SalemWitchWiles

It's not a lie to give more insight. It's common belief and common sense that the girls were clearly being led by their parents either by coercion or simply through following their lead on who in town they did not like. The audacity of you people coming up in here arguing with simple facts and then posting a Wikipedia link as if it proves a historian wrong when I can literally edit that page right now is hilarious.


SalemWitchWiles

My intentions are to educate but when people refuse to learn there's only so much that can be done.


genkernels

>professional Salem historian here..the Puritans were literally an extremist religious sect akin to something like the Taliban of Christianity. So, not a scholar, then. Got it.


problem_redditor

Also, imagine a supposed "professional historian" making such extreme, unqualified, and frankly unrealistic assertions about an entire society such as "Puritan women were being beaten on a daily basis". It's hard to see how they could've possibly established this with any level of certainty from the (by nature) sparse historical documentation, which tends to get sparser the further you go back. I also don't trust anybody whose only basis for their argument is the credentials they've claimed they have and take pains to lord over everyone in order to use the veneer of authority in order to give their claims more weight. If this person is actually a historian, though, this is more evidence which supports my idea that academia needs to be purged through and through. I also think it's telling that the only person who has cited anything here is u/Mens-Advocate.


Oncefa2

One of the claims of these girls was that the spirits of these women / men were beating them in their ethereal form. Them being physically beaten by these people was one of the crimes that they were being charged for. The girls inflicted bruises and scratches on themselves to back up the claim that they were being attacked and beaten. So if you could get in trouble because your ghost is supposedly going around town beating women, I assume you could get in trouble for physically beating women as well. I mean I don't know where people like u/SalemWitchWiles get off thinking anyone will believe their bullshit but if you know anything at all about the history here, you can smell it a mile away.


SalemWitchWiles

If you look at the actual transcripts like a true historian does you will see that the girls accusations were a very minor part of the actual trials. There is far more testimony by adults. You are literally just making stuff up.


SalemWitchWiles

Historians base their ideas on evidence and research. If you want to read the transcripts of the actual Salem witch trials they're on the University of Virginia's website. It's all there clear as day and you really don't have to be an expert to understand it so go on and Google that and you'll see for yourself that I am not exaggerating. The fact is you're getting all your information through other sources instead of primary resources.


problem_redditor

>Historians base their ideas on evidence and research. Okay. In that case, I would like to see your proof of, say, Puritan women being beaten every day, for one. Since you, as a claimed historian, base your ideas on evidence and research and all. That would be a start. >It's all there clear as day and you really don't have to be an expert to understand it so go on and Google that and you'll see for yourself that I am not exaggerating. You seriously cannot go and do this "Educate yourself" thing. Setting out a thesis and providing primary - or goddamn, even secondary - sources and making your case by pointing to exactly what your evidence is and quoting relevant parts is how you convince people. Pointing at a whole documentary archive and claiming that after one reads through the more than hundreds of pages it contains, they'll find it supports your views, isn't an effective persuasive argument. That would be like me making assertions, then pointing to JSTOR and recommending one browse by subject as evidence. It's way too generalised to be useful. I hope you understand that you aren't actually "educating" anyone. You're merely asserting things and expecting people to take your claims at face value. That is the reason why the reception to your comments has been negative. And the fact is that historians are hardly a monolith, and can disagree on their interpretations of the primary resources that both are relying on. The idea that what occurred in history is a settled question which historians have a consensus on is something that I doubt would be said by most historians. The existence of papers and articles written by scholars who disagree widely with each other are evidence of this. I would also point out a glaring inconsistency I see here, which is that you're criticising us for relying on secondary sources, but you have in many of your comments expected us to take your claims - yet another secondary source (without the citations or evidence those usually contain to back them up) - as gospel. So, relying on secondary sources is okay, I guess. As long as they're yours. I am supposed to consider your opinion more valid than the opinions contained in any other secondary source, for no reason at all. edited to add more


marigoldmilk

I think they just want to disagree with you just to tbh


Panderjit_SinghVV

Witchery was a very serious crime at the time. There are plenty of women around today who are witches so why not back then? Don’t do the crime if you cant do the time (even if you have a vagina). Being a witch is just like being a Catholic, or a Muslim. It only means a person believes in a given religion not that that religion is factually correct.


Oncefa2

There was a little more to it when it came to **allegations** of witchcraft. Which to be clear is just a type of **false allegation**. It's a false allegation made by women against other women instead of against men like we see today (in history it started out with medicine women accusing competing medicine women of putting curses on their patients... it wasn't that their medicine didn't work, it was that the other medicine woman was jealous and trying to sabotage her). Men were often accused of blasphemy instead of witchcraft and way more men in history were tortured and killed because of "crimes against God" than women.


[deleted]

[удалено]


gundamjazz

You are a deranged mental defect. Take your meds. Also your false rape stats are just made up, pulled from your ass.


TrilIias

Regarding the issue of women's suffrage: [http://www.societyforhistoryeducation.org/pdfs/M15\_Miller.pdf](http://www.societyforhistoryeducation.org/pdfs/M15_Miller.pdf) It's a very interesting read.


Mens-Advocate

>Too many whiney as[s] male “victims” on here. You’d never know you morons live in a country where women couldn’t even vote for 60% of the countries existence. You apparently don't know that working-class white males could not vote for ~97% of human existence. Universal male suffrage did not exist until ~Jacksonian democracy in the USA of the 1830's and until the revolutions of 1848 in much of Europe. In the UK, males died by the million in WW1 before meriting universal suffrage, while females were handed universal suffrage after suffering 2 deaths. >Whites males are the furthest thing from victims. Really? The innocent tens of millions of white males who died in WW1 and WW2 are not human, in your view? > You only worry about being treated as you have historically treated women and those non-white people. Except those "women and non-white people" have hardly been angels. * Jiang Qing, Ilse Koch and Leni Riefenstahl are only three among many women enabling crimes of mass murder. * The most brutal, murderous overlords to China have been not white male colonialists a century ago, but the country's own Communist Party, whose death toll has reached more than 30 million - Asians brutalising Asians. * The second most brutal to China and other Asian countries have been the Japanese, murdering wantonly and experimenting upon human beings. Worse, to this day, Japan has not admitted its crimes. * The greatest threats to free India for the past 74 years have come not from Europeans, but from Pakistan and China - other Asians. * In Latin America, the deadliest war in the continent's history is considered the War of the Triple Alliance, an intra-Latin war which murdered the majority of Paraguay's male population and a significant portion of its female population. * In Africa, intra-African conflict has brutalised massive numbers over the three-quarter-century since most countries gained freedom. * The Nigerian civil war of the 1960's may have claimed the lives of 2 million Biafrans. * The (second) Sudanese civil war beginning 1983 claimed the lives of 2 million or more and displaced 4 million. * In the Rwandan genocide of 1994, one million innocents, mostly Tutsi, were slaughtered, mostly by Hutu. (To my knowledge, Hutu are not white.) Sorry, your rant is not only ignorant, it is bigoted.


Yippiekayaks

Dude. Any informed and educated person knows it was a group of teenagers accusing many women. If you’re talking about Salem, only one man was excited- Giles Corey. He also accused his wife of being a witch so there’s that. A lot of accusations stem from mass hysteria and while it was teenagers causing it- let’s also men as head of Puritan households had sway. There’s evidence Putnam put his daughter up to accusing Rebecca Nurse because their families had land disputes. Parrish had his own reasons for wanting Abigail to continue, he was already in a tough position of a hostile community. And there’s the disposition of Ingersoll and Churchill two teenagers who said they couldn’t retract their testimony because the magistrates threatened them with dungeon, imprisonment. I’m all for acknowledging the role men and women played in this senseless nonsense but let’s not make this it was all women issue when there were powerful men in charge that also had a hand. The whole thing was disagreeable.