icowden
Squire
Splitting hairs over the detail is hardly rewriting history. Most children are taught about women gaining the vote and the general assumption of the population is that women's rights were supressed prior to this achievement.
Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
bobzmyunkle
Senior Member
File it under pointless pedantry scores points for monkers.
AuroraSaab
Squire
Lol. Only you could 'All Lives Matter' the women's suffrage movement and say 'Yes, but what about the fellers?'.
Nothing rational about denying science and biology. No rational basis for admitting men into the women's category in sports, or putting men in women's jails. In the end you always fall back on denying biology and end up making emotive special pleading. It's the only recourse because one thing the transactivist movement isn't is rational.
Last edited:
AuroraSaab
Squire
I'm getting deja vue over the 1823 Gaols Act. It's been an education though. I never realised women had it so good.
monkers
Legendary Member
My challenge to the GC brigade is that they keep trotting out 'women's hard-won rights'. That's fine when we are talking of the history of universal suffrage, but it has no relevance to the terms of the EqA 2010, since it modified none of that. US came about in 1928, not 2010. I just wish they could change the record.
My mentioning this en passe was a mistake because as usual it was jumped upon as an opportunity for argument. Only then As got her facts wrong. You'd almost be inclined to think that no women had been allowed to vote until 2010, and that trans women are men coming along to rob of that hard won right. As that well-known youtube lawyer would say, 'it's just bollocks'.
So had you been a bit more observant, the pedantry didn't start with me, but AS stamping her tiny foot as usual and getting her facts wrong in her rant.
As an aside, this version of the history of universal suffrage overlooks the efforts of working class men (known as Chartists) to organise and end the oppression. It isn't that they campaigned for women, but historical account records that they decided not to, not because they didn't desire US but because they considered that incremental steps were more likely to succeed. Women campaigned along with Chartists.
At certain times within this timeline, there were wealthy women who owned property and entitled to vote who campaigned against the rights of all women to vote, and even against the education of women to be able to write. These were some of the so-called blue-stocking women. So history records wealthy women oppressing poor women. This is neglected by those who choose to portray all men being the oppressors of all women. It's a bad rep for the men, and certainly not altogether true.
Rusty Nails
Country Member
At this stage there is a lot of point...pointing the finger, point-scoring, points of order, avoiding the point.
monkers
Legendary Member
There you go putting words in my mouth again.
Working class men were not instrumental in the oppression of women. Historical accounts show how the Chartists (working class men) organised and campaigned against their own oppression. Had they not been successful in breaking down some of the barriers, then many historians with feminists among them say that bringing that oppression of women may have taken much longer.
So I'm not going to join in with your narrative that men have been oppressing women, because as has been shown, the correct reading of history, and this is not pedantry, that wealthy men and women campaigned to oppress the poor regardless of their sex. Whether people choose to view this through the oppression of the rights of the poor or the protection of privilege of the land owners doesn't bother me, but the truth is worth protecting. This ties in with the history of the role of benefactors, work houses etc, none of which should be overlooked in our history.
monkers
Legendary Member
True. It's always futile to engage here, which is why I took time out. Why I came back I don't know and is now a matter of regret.
monkers
Legendary Member
So you will continue to say. Your own colour of prejudice is already nailed to the mast.
monkers
Legendary Member
Funny that you raise, as you failed with your prisons narrative too, especially when the prisons minister made that statement that undid all your guff.
Rusty Nails
Country Member
Without taking sides, it takes two to tango.
monkers
Legendary Member
That's a very fair appraisal. I'm bright enough to have learned my lesson, yet here I am - stupid as .....
OP
OP
theclaud
Reading around the chip
This is such irrelevant cobblers. You haven't even managed to revise your opinion that KJK is a 'women's rights activist', whilst she's engaged on a world tour flanked by actual Nazis everywhere she goes.
AuroraSaab
Squire
She's had plenty of her meetings where the only aggressive men in black who turned up were transactivists. KJK could certainly do more to tell them to stay away but they were there to confront the transactivists not listen to the women speaking.
Do you honestly think the Nazis were there to stand quietly and hear women talk about stuff like periods and sexual assault?
Aggressive men turning up to confront aggressive men and it's still womens fault. Nothing new there.
OP
OP
theclaud
Reading around the chip
LOL. If I was doing Women's Rights Activism and Nazis showed up in ever increasing and emboldened numbers, I'd probably stop what I was doing and have a think. Unless I'd actually invited them, of course.
