Gender again. Sorry!

[classic33]

The vote was withheld from ALL women, every single one, regardless of age, status, or wealth. They were denied the vote explicitly on the basis of their sex.

Saying 'Well working class blokes couldn't vote either, so that's the same really' is disingenuous nonsense.

You're guilty of not checking the facts first, again.
"In 1918 a coalition government passed the Representation of the People Act 1918, enfranchising all men over 21, as well as all women over the age of 30 who met minimum property qualifications. This act was the first to include almost all adult men in the political system and began the inclusion of women, extending the franchise by 5.6 million men and 8.4 million women."

 

[AuroraSaab]

Ah, so the British Library are clueless too as far as you are concerned eh?

This was clearly about oppression of people who were either poor or female or both.

Of course it was oppression of the poor. But what was the basis for the women who were the same age, wealth, property owning status being denied the vote when men in the same situation had it?

From your own link:

Women had to married to a registered male voter. Men didn't. Had to be 30, not 21. What was the basis of them being denied the vote when every man had been given it? Their sex.

 

[monkers]

You're guilty of not checking the facts first, again.
"In 1918 a coalition government passed the Representation of the People Act 1918, enfranchising all men over 21, as well as all women over the age of 30 who met minimum property qualifications. This act was the first to include almost all adult men in the political system and began the inclusion of women, extending the franchise by 5.6 million men and 8.4 million women."

indeed Also 1918 ...

The Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act is passed on 21 November allowing women to stand for Parliament

 

[AuroraSaab]

You're guilty of not checking the facts first, again.
"In 1918 a coalition government passed the Representation of the People Act 1918, enfranchising all men over 21, as well as all women over the age of 30 who met minimum property qualifications. This act was the first to include almost all adult men in the political system and began the inclusion of women, extending the franchise by 5.6 million men and 8.4 million women."

It actually says right there - all men got the vote, some more women got the vote. Not all women. What was the basis of it not being extended to every citizen? Sex. Specifically being the female sex.

 

[monkers]

Of course it was oppression of the poor. But what was the basis for the women who were the same age, wealth, property owning status being denied the vote when men in the same situation had it?

From your own link:
View attachment 3373

Women had to married to a registered male voter. Men didn't. Had to be 30, not 21. What was the basis of them being denied the vote when every man had been given it? Their sex.

There you have it, not all women were excluded for all time before universal suffrage as you had claimed, neither were women prevented from owning property in their own name.

Just admit it, you got it wrong.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You keep banging on about Corbyn in this thread for some reason. It's mental. The media ran a hostile campaign against Corbyn. Some of us didn't fall for it. What parallel are you trying to make?

Because you more than anyone should grasp how people use guilt by association. It was used against Corbyn to deride all the policies of the left, regardless of what they were, and it's used in this thread to deride all gender critical feminism.

 

[monkers]

Because you more than anyone should grasp how people use guilt by association. It was used against Corbyn to deride all the policies of the left, regardless of what they were, and it's used in this thread to deride all gender critical feminism.

Corbyn was brought down by a right-wing smear campaign, and again it is not unlike the smear campaign against trans people that you are involved in - so a bit of an own goal there on your part.

You claim to come from the left ie feminism, as do I, but your knowledge looks pretty shaky from where I'm sitting.

 

[AuroraSaab]

There you have it, not all women were excluded for all time before universal suffrage as you had claimed, neither were women prevented from owning property in their own name.

Just admit it, you got it wrong.

Jesus. So when all men had the vote in 1918 and a very, very limited number of women also had it, the basis of their exclusion from suffrage wasn't their sex?

Can you find me a time in the UK before 1928 when women and men of equal situations both had the vote? What was the reason for the difference in whether people in the same situation could or couldn't vote?

You could have 2 people in 1918 with exactly the same wealth, status, property, and one had the vote and one didn't. How would we know which one could put a X on a ballot paper and which knew couldn't? It's a mystery.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Corbyn was brought down by a right-wing smear campaign, and again it is not unlike the smear campaign against trans people that you are involved in - so a bit of an own goal there on your part.

You claim to come from the left ie feminism, as do I, but your knowledge looks pretty shaky from where I'm sitting.

Excluding men from women's single sex spaces and services, sports and prisons, isn't right wing.

Thinking men can be women and access all those things simply because they say they are women is classic entitlement and the patriarchy on stilts.

 

[monkers]

Jesus. So when all men had the vote in 1918 and a very, very limited number of women also had it, the basis of their exclusion from suffrage wasn't their sex?

Can you find me a time in the UK before 1928 when women and men of equal situations both had the vote? What was the reason for the difference in whether people in the same situation could or couldn't vote?

You could have 2 people in 1918 with exactly the same wealth, status, property, and one had the vote and one didn't. How would we know which one could put a X on a ballot paper and which knew couldn't? It's a mystery.

I've already told you, prior to 1832 it was the case. The period of the worst oppression was 1832 to 1918 - this period oppressed all women and 90% of men. From 1918 things improved, though were not fully resolved until universal suffrage.

This retelling of history that only women were excluded from voting is wrong. The majority of people were excluded because they were poor. Those women who would have qualified on the basis of property rights were then also excluded due to their sex.

 

[monkers]

Excluding men from women's single sex spaces and services, sports and prisons, isn't right wing.

Thinking men can be women and access all those things simply because they say they are women is classic entitlement and the patriarchy on stilts.

This is so you, when you fark up (which is often) you just move goalposts and resort to type, repeating the same old tosh. Oppressing people has never before been the way of the left wing which had always previously fought for inclusion. The 2004 Act and the 2010 Act were both brought in by Labour administration.

 

[AuroraSaab]

This retelling of history that only women were excluded from voting is wrong. The majority of people were excluded because they were poor. Those women who would have qualified on the basis of property rights were then also excluded due to their sex.

So their property owning status, age, wealth etc was irrelevant because they were women ...
Didn't matter how rich you were, you couldn't vote because you were a woman.

Oppressing people has never before been the way of the left wing which had always previously fought for inclusion. The 2004 Act and the 2010 Act were both brought in by Labour administration.

Allow the oppressor group (men) to opt into the oppressed group (women) at will has never been a policy of the historical left. Recognising sex as an axis of oppression is Marxism 101.

Unfortunately there's always been a strong element of misogyny on the left, just like on the right.

 

[Mr Celine]

At a time when women and everything they possessed were the property of their husbands, whether rich or poor?

Not in Scotland they weren't, the married women's property act never applied here.

 

[monkers]

So their property owning status, age, wealth etc was irrelevant because they were women ...
Didn't matter how rich you were, you couldn't vote because you were a woman.

You can rewrite history all you want, and I'm sure you will, but I (and no doubt others) can see you doing it.

I'm beginning to wonder if there is any subject on which you are able to speak the truth. I do think it's deliberate since even when you are exposed and it's obvious, you continue. The probability of rational or useful discussion with you is close to zero.

 

[icowden]

There you have it, not all women were excluded for all time before universal suffrage as you had claimed, neither were women prevented from owning property in their own name.

From the Parliament website@-

Another change brought by the 1832 Reform Act was the formal exclusion of women from voting in Parliamentary elections, as a voter was defined in the Act as a male person. Before 1832 there were occasional, although rare, instances of women voting.

So yes, prior to 1832 it was not an absolute as you point out. There were rare instances of women owning property and voting.
But they were rare.

So a statement that women could not vote prior to 1928 whilst not being strictly 100% accurate, is nevertheless supportive of the idea that women were excluded from voting because of their gender. Prior to 1832 very few women voted, then they were excluded for not being male. In 1918, laws were changed to allow some women to vote, but not on an equal basis with men. That point was reached in 1928.

I'm not sure what benefit or point there is to this discussion but it seems to me that the argument is we went from

• Some men allowed to vote but very few women able to
• All men allowed to vote but no women able to
• All men allowed to vote but some women able to
• Equality: All adults allowed to vote.

I think that supports the notion that women had to fight for voting equality amongst other things.
Women just now have to accept that they are no longer any different to men who can be women if they want to.