Reposting a rephrased version of the original question that came off as hypothetical:

In the book "Soul Murder and Slavery: Toward a fully loaded cost accounting" by Painter, Nell Irvin - 1995" It is noted that slavery and women's position in society was intertwined with many core beliefs i.e. Submission and Obedience overlapping in regards to women and slaves.

So basically how much of an effect did the ending of slavery have on women's rights?

So im reading "Soul Murder and Slavery" by Painter, Nell Irvin 1995 where the argument is put forth that the subjugation of women was a natural extension of the subjugation of the slave. Women in the work are shown to be without true power and derive their identity from the man in charge whether it be the husband, grandfather, father, son or brother.

So women were basically treated as slaves by their husbands as it was the only real frame of reference they knew. It was with the abolition of slavery therefor women could compare their own lives to that of slaves and the similarities i.e. endless toil for little/no reward.

Part of this is also mentioned in reference to religion in the South of the USA where Submission and Obedience are core values of slavery as well as of "the Patriarchy and Piety". So women and slaves are taught to obey the "man" in return for access to heaven.

So boiling it down, how true would the OP title be or would emancipation of women have occurred assuming slavery was still in effect.

Funny enough, I'm in religion class and we are talking about primal religions. Apparently the Lakota tribe's 16 deities are derived from the idea of 4 times 4. The number four is a sacred number and the text explains that this refers to the four cardinal directions. So this led me to the question: did they have an understanding of the compass and the earth's magnetic fields? Or were they merely introduced to it by European's?

So I'm reading a book called "The Hundred Day Winter War" by Gordon Sander. It's really interesting and about a historical topic I literally knew nothing about.

As interesting as the book is, I didn't really get a picture of why exactly the USSR felt the need to invade Finland. What did they seek to gain out of it? Why did nobody foresee the terrain being an issue and how could a super power have been so ill prepared to invade?

Were some treatments more successful than others? If no one knows, where can I learn such information?

According to various resources and first hand observation, it appears thsy rice cultivation is still carried out largely on a manual basis.

How or why have farmers resisted mechanization? Is there something about rice cultivation that makes mechsnization particularly difficult, expensive, or otherwise undesirable?

I know it's a sensitive topic since it's not been long since he died. But when he died in October he was hailed to be as important to what happened in poland and Eastern Europe 25 years ago as Walesa. From my (quite brief) reading, I can see him more as a model/icon figure than an playmaker. I'm just curious what do you think.

I can't find the answer to this anywhere

And ofcourse I would love to hear some stories if you have some, to illustrate :) .

Which french monarch wasn't crowned in the Reims Cathedral besides Napoleon?

My classmates and I were wondering if England sent it as an insult.

I studied the 2nd Persian War in ancient history and have recently seen the new 300 movie, I can pick out the historical inaccuracies except for the attire of the Greeks during naval battles, what did they wear? The bare minimum seems logical as armour is too heavy so was it really just a helmet and an optional shield?

I am not a guy who reads a lot about history, I am just somebody who is curious about where my ancestors are from.

I was born in the Indian part of Punjab into a Sikh Family (Kshatriya Caste, if that matters?). My grand parents though were born in the Punjab now in Pakistan but moved to India after the partition.

I and most of my relatives do not look like most Indians from the Eastern or Southern states. I am relatively tall(6 Feet) and have a lighter complexion. Please understand my question isnt what race I am, I am just curious where Punjabi(and other North Indian) people came from since there is a common clear difference in appearances of North-West Indians and East Indians and South Indians.

Ive read theories where people say we are have Indo-Aryan and Dravadian genes, some say we are middle eastern, and some say we are fully Dravadian, although I am not sure if these sources have some sort of a racial bias in them.

It would be great if I could get a simplified explanation from a non-biased historian. Im a total History-noob and JUST discovered this Sub-Reddit. Thanks!!!

TLDR; Punjabi people in India descendents of? Curious! Not Racist! :(