Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

Mandela is an icon because of the recognition of the struggle. He didn't organise just for men.

He didn't need to organise just for men.
He did organise in support of his specific group's rights though, which is perfectly acceptable. Women are allowed to do this too.

Feminists attacking police officers = iconic.
'Knights' attacking police officers = failures of policing.

Militant tactics were used because democratic means, ie the vote, were not available to women. Women didn't in general set out to attack the police.

The general mismanagement of the Portsmouth demo is just as likely due to operational incompetence as to the police being on the side of the protesters, which is what was suggested.

Eugenics were not a feminist endeavour. Eugenics is a fascist endeavour. We are allowed to talk about it.

You're only talking about it in an attempt to undermine Pankhurst's staus. I think your attempts to paint one of the most radical figures of the 20th century as a fascist is laughable and of course a bit pointless on a forum read by 10 people.

 

[AuroraSaab]

She campaigned for voting rights of propertied women.

Men over the age of 21 had the right to vote from 1919. 19 if they'd seen military service in The Great War.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. Votes for women on the same terms as men had them. They were hardly going to give all women the vote when not all men had it.

 

[monkers]

He didn't need to organise just for men.
He did organise in support of his specific group's rights though, which is perfectly acceptable. .

Mandela could have chosen to but he didn't. Same choices available to Pankhurst.

Women are allowed to do this too.

Incorrect inference drawn. A false argument. Nobody has said otherwise.

 

[monkers]

You're only talking about it in an attempt to undermine Pankhurst's staus. I think your attempts to paint one of the most radical figures of the 20th century as a fascist is laughable and of course a bit pointless on a forum read by 10 people.

If that is your view, why are you here?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Mandela could have chosen to but he didn't. Same choices available to Pankhurst.

He could have chosen to campaign against apartheid being disassembled for men but not for women? How would that work?

Incorrect inference drawn. A false argument. Nobody has said otherwise.

You've suggested the women's suffrage movement should have centered men's needs as well as their own. That's the same thing as saying these women shouldn't have concentrated on their own particular interests - even on something as fundamental as the vote.
It's not really fair if it doesn't include men.

 Men, and indeed women, were already working towards universal voting. Women are allowed to organise in their own specific interests, as the WSPU did. Not everything has to include men.

 

[AuroraSaab]

If that is your view, why are you here?

Because it's sometimes quite interesting.
If I want a wider audience and less of an echo chamber I pop over to X where thousands can read my posts. I might start visiting Mumsnet again, see whether they agree with your view that Emmeline Pankhurst is a fascist.

 

[monkers]

You've suggested the women's suffrage movement should have centered men's needs as well as their own.

No I didn't. You are doing this false interpretation thing again.

What I did say is that they exercised a choice not to do so. I also explained why this was not the rational choice. To repeat myself, men and women were not treated fairly due to a class structure.

You are trying to treat this a battle of the sexes (as usual). My point made and remains is that the patriarchal establishment were oppressing the 'lower orders' of society - not women as a single group.

In repeating the line about 170 years ago therefore claiming irrelevance is you making a major omission from, or revision to history. This is not some modern reinterpretation of Pankhurst I'm speaking of, this was a contemporary view, and an integral part of the story.

wiki

As Pankhurst's eldest daughter Christabel took leadership of the WSPU, antagonism between the group and the government grew. Eventually, the group adopted bombings and arson as a tactic, and more moderate organisations spoke out against the Pankhurst family. In 1913, several prominent individuals left the WSPU, among them Pankhurst's younger daughters, Adela and Sylvia. Emmeline was so furious that she "gave [Adela] a ticket, £20, and a letter of introduction to a suffragette in Australia, and firmly insisted that she emigrate".[7] Adela complied and the family rift was never healed. Sylvia became a socialist.

''Sylvia became a socialist''. Not 'Sylvia became a man'. It was a class struggle, not one of sex, and my wider point is only that it would have been better fought as a class struggle rather than as one of sex.

Emmeline Pankhurst was a Conservative, her daughter Sylvia became a socialist. Pankhurst has no place as ''a feminist icon'' as though her views came from the left. She has her own unique place in history. That does not say that people have no right to view her as ''an icon''.

In 1918 women did not have parity in treatment with men, but there was improvement.

People and events between 1918 and 1928 was to my mind more important for the rights of ordinary people, men and women, women and men.

 

[AuroraSaab]

No I didn't. You are doing this false interpretation thing again.

What I did say is that they exercised a choice not to. I also explained why this was not the rational choice. To repeat myself, men and women were not treated fairly due to a class structure.

You are trying to treat this a battle of the sexes (as usual). My point made and remains that the patriarchal establishment were oppressing the 'lower orders' of society - not women as a single group.

In repeating the line about 170 years ago therefore irrelevant you make a major omission from history. This is not some modern reinterpretation of Pankhurst, this was a contemporary view, and an integral part of the story.

wiki


''Sylvia became a socialist''. Not 'Sylvia became a man'. It was a class struggle, not one of sex, and my wider point is only that it would have been better fought as a class struggle rather than as one of sex.

Emmeline Pankhurst was a Conservative, her daughter Sylvia became a socialist. Pankhurst has no place as ''a feminist icon'' as though her views came from the left. She has her own unique place in history. That does not say that people have no right to view her as ''an icon''.

In 1918 women did not have parity in treatment with men, but there was improvement.

People and events between 1918 and 1928 was to my mind more important for the rights of ordinary people, men and women, women and men.

Some men had the vote. No women did. It was a sex based rights issue. Women do not have an obligation to fight every front for everybody. They are entitled to centre their own interests.

Yes, Sylvia went off to Russia to meet Lenin. So what? As time went on the movement widened to other social issues as they often do.

Women have no obligation to include men in everything. The WPSU (the W stands for Women) encompassed women of all classes; it wasn't about men, however much you seem to think it should have been.

 

[monkers]

Some men had the vote. No women did. It was a sex based rights issue. Women do not have an obligation to fight every front for everybody. They are entitled to centre their own interests.

Yes, Sylvia went off to Russia to meet Lenin. So what? As time went on the movement widened to other social issues as they often do.

Women have no obligation to include men in everything. The WPSU (the W stands for Women) encompassed women of all classes; it wasn't about men, however much you seem to think it should have been.

''Some men - No women''. You've correctly identified the mischief at last. How many was ''some''?

Women have no obligation to include men in everything.

You are repeating a false claim. Nobody has said otherwise. It doesn't bolster you point, it diminishes by being false.

it wasn't about men, however much you seem to think it should have been.

There it is again, repetition of a false claim.

Nobody said ''should''. Again, repetition of false claims only diminish validity.

 

[monkers]

Militant tactics were used because democratic means, ie the vote, were not available to women.

Nor to a majority of men. We can agree on the first part of the sentence though.

 

[AuroraSaab]

''Some men - No women''. You've correctly identified the mischief at last. How many was ''some''?

A lot more than 'zero'. Women are allowed to agitate for their own specific interests. Men were perfectly capable of campaigning for extending the vote to other men, and did.

 

[monkers]

A lot more than 'zero'.

A non answer to a question. Avoidance tactic.

Women are allowed to agitate for their own interests

How many repetitions is that now of a false claim? Nobody has said otherwise. You are making yourself look ridiculous.

 

[AuroraSaab]

No, you've moaned that Pankhurst should have included men in her Votes for Women campaign and I've told you that 1. People were already campaigning for that and 2. She was entitled not to. It was the Women's Social and Political Union, not the Everybody's SPU.

Here's Christabel rocking a big hat. These women were awesome.

 

[monkers]

No, you've moaned that Pankhurst should have included men in her Votes for Women campaign and I've told you that 1.

Yes you are very good at telling people that your opinions are the only available facts.

I didn't moan. I set out a nuanced post. This after I carefully noted that opinions will vary.

As usual, your opinion is the only valid one in town. This is what defines an intolerant absolutist.

Do I think Pankhurst made a significant contribution? Yes. Do I like her stated political views otherwise? No.

Am I allowed to say so? Yes, with no dependency on who I happen to be.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Opine away. How ever much you seek to undermine these women, their place in history is assured.