Women who drive don't care if they are raped

[SCarpelan]

... according to a Saudi historian.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQEeXmcWOxI" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQEeXmcWOxI</a>

As outrageous as the claim is, his solution to the issue is even better. His seriousness and the reactions of the other guests and the host are just an icing to the cake.

[Barbarella]

If you're a guy who doesn't feel complete unless you have half the human population under your thumb as slaves/maids/baby factories/sex toys/cooks, then you're not worthy to be called a "man". A real man is strong enough to NOT be threatened by a woman who has the same rights as he does.

I think all this 6000 + years of Patriarchal/Androcratic oppression of women is simply because human males who were not "fit" enough to be chosen by human females as mates got all pissy and, instead of working on themselves, decided to fudge Mother Nature's mating system (in which females have a choice and even make the final choice after the males do their mating dances/displays/fights, etc.).

The host's facepalm is hilarious. The juxtaposition with that particular subtitle is even more epic.

These guys should just quit making excuses and admit that they want women as slaves & that they need it that way because women  would not chose/mate with them otherwise.

[Ultimate Paragon]

This is right up there with that Nigerian guy who tried to use magnets to show that gay marriage is wrong.

[Ironchew]

I think all this 6000 + years of Patriarchal/Androcratic oppression of women is simply because human males who were not "fit" enough to be chosen by human females as mates got all pissy and, instead of working on themselves, decided to fudge Mother Nature's mating system (in which females have a choice and even make the final choice after the males do their mating dances/displays/fights, etc.).

That's not quite how relationships work. Even granting your eugenics hypothesis, if the genes themselves are unfit, what can someone do to "work on themselves?" Human relationships are more complicated than that and we should be glad they are, because ditching your simplistic notion of sexual selection opens up opportunities for cooperation, altruism, and civilization.

A more subtle scenario would be a lonely paleolithic human who couldn't get laid inventing alcoholic beverages so that everyone could have more sex more often. The world would certainly be worse off without that.

[Art Vandelay]

I think all this 6000 + years of Patriarchal/Androcratic oppression of women is simply because human males who were not "fit" enough to be chosen by human females as mates got all pissy and, instead of working on themselves, decided to fudge Mother Nature's mating system.

No, "Mother Nature's mating system" is exactly why patriarchy is so universal in the first place. When it comes to reproduction, it's the women who're tied up for nine months carrying their kids, then have to spend another couple of years breastfeeding. That's almost three years, minimum, of full time child rearing per kid. Men, on the other hand, have no such biological limitations. They just have to fuck and then are perfectly free to do something else. It's why they've always been the "provider" while women stay home with the kids. It's simply more efficient that way. From there, it not only became ingrained in pretty much every culture, but also seeing as men were the ones running things, they ended up with all the power. Hence patriarchy became the standard for human civilisation and stayed that way up until the mid 20th century.

[Ultimate Paragon]

I think all this 6000 + years of Patriarchal/Androcratic oppression of women is simply because human males who were not "fit" enough to be chosen by human females as mates got all pissy and, instead of working on themselves, decided to fudge Mother Nature's mating system.

No, "Mother Nature's mating system" is exactly why patriarchy is so universal in the first place. When it comes to reproduction, it's the women who're tied up for nine months carrying the kid, then have to spend another couple of years breastfeeding. That's almost three years, minimum, of full time child rearing per kid. Men, on the other hand, have no such biological limitations. They just have to fuck and then are perfectly free to do something else. It's why they've always been the "provider" while women stay home with the kids. It's simply more efficient that way. From there, it not only became ingrained in pretty much every culture, but also seeing as men were the ones running things, they ended up with all the power. Hence patriarchy became the standard for human civilisation and stayed that way up until the mid 20th century.

There's another reason, as well.  Women always know that their children are actually theirs, but before DNA testing, men could never know for certain.  The only way to ensure that a man was raising his own children was to prevent cuckoldry at all costs.  And thus, women were reduced to objects valued solely for their domesticity, virginity and purity.  Many societies saw this as a fair trade-off: the woman's certainty over the maternity of her children is a privilege and power she holds over men, so men are "entitled" to other forms of power to compensate.  As a result, many anthropologists and sociologists believe that fear of being cuckolded was the root cause of misogyny.