Forums revive the claim that women need an owner

Why the idea that women need an 'owner' is resurfacing

In the depths of the internet, a debate as old as it is controversial has resurfaced: do women need to be a man's property? The conversation, which has taken place on anonymous forums, mixes references to Arab proverbs, the fall of civilizations and supposed female instincts to argue that without an 'owner' women become a social problem. One current holds that women naturally seek a man to possess them, whether a husband or a political party. Another, minority one rejects this, arguing that leadership does not require ownership.

The civilizational collapse argument
Some participants claim that in every society that fell, women gained too much power. If women ruled, they say, wars would be terrible and we would still be living in caves. Another goes further: if current civilization collapsed, nature would once again dictate that women and children be the property of a man. These claims lack solid historical backing and are more a projection of contemporary antiestéticars.

The counterargument: leadership without an owner
Against this position, some argue that anyone who needs to declare themselves the 'owner' of another person is not a true leader. The idea of oversight, rather than ownership, also emerges: controlling women without possessing them, though the poster acknowledges this would be hard to implement in Spain. This rebuttal, while also controversial, at least avoids objectifying language.

A debate with no data, only ideology
The most striking thing about the exchange is the total absence of objective data. There are no sociological studies, no statistics on female well-being under different models of ownership, nor analyses of countries where these ideas have been applied. Only quotes from proverbs, personal beliefs and a fatalistic view of history. In short, the debate reveals more about the anxieties of those holding it than about the reality of gender relations.