Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

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

View attachment 17255

Not ''these women''. I've only mentioned Pankhurst.

This is my problem with this approach of your's Aurora - saying that one bad apple is the same as saying every apple in every barrel must therefore be rotten.

As we are on the gender thread, I'll repeat what has been said before - just because you can find an outlier case of a trans woman who has offended it is really bad logic and a lack of grace to say that therefore they are all the same. We are not - but inevitably there are one or two historic cases of bad apples, and they'll be more no doubt in the future. Just as there are women who are sex offenders - more than a hundred of those in prisons in England & Wales, and they'll be more of those too.

I'm not undermining the result that was achieved by the movement. I am saying that I don't think much of her as a human being - therefore she is not an icon to me, feminist or otherwise.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I think recasting Emmeline Pankhurst as a bad apple is a non starter. Try Bluesky.

Transwomen are men. Men who offend aren't rare. You can try to kickstart the arguments again if you want to but I don't think anybody is interested.

 

[classic33]

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.

No, that's not what she wanted, nor is it what I said.

After The Great War all men, not just "propertied men", over the age of 21 were given the vote. 19 if they'd seen service.

She wanted the vote for "propertied women" not all women. Therein lies a difference.
She may have used the working woman to bolster her case, but she'd no interest in them.

 

[farfromtheland]

In lauding Emmeline Pankhurts as a state hero, without exposing her political bias,
a space is opened for the nasty aspects of her politics to be excused.

This is similar to (not the same as, but there's a spectrum) Far Right groups softening up youths on f-book to the idea that street vigilante-ism is ok by posting memes to promote folk execution of child sex abusers.
It is possible to make a case for execution of child abusers, either by lawful means or at the hands of their victims, but not at the hands of an ignorant mob.

So she campaigned for votes for women? No, she campaigned for votes for rich women.
I can't really see how this is better than institutionalising oppression, unless it was as a step towards universal suffrage?

Please quote some of her speeches Aurora if universal suffrage was her true desire.
Otherwise I think we are entitled to think that the eugenics was possibly prime.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Try a simple Google folks. It's not difficult.
Disagree with her if you want (history and hindsight give you that privilege) but at least acknowledge there was a logic in the strategy.

• Property qualifications: The Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU) first campaigned to give women the vote on the same terms as men. [1, 2]

• The "Votes for Women" goal: At the time, only certain men who owned a qualifying amount of property could vote.
  
  

• Limited scope: The mainstream WSPU leadership wanted votes for women who met those same property and tax-paying qualifications. This would have meant enfranchising mostly wealthy and middle-class women first, rather than universal adult suffrage

 

[farfromtheland]

I'm having a debate with people here, not with a search engine. I don't have to try to justify someone else's opinion, especially if I think it flawed. That's their part.

 

[monkers]

Transwomen are men. Men who offend aren't rare.

It's this kind of logic where you really fark up Aurora.

Listen to Ralph because I can't be bothered with this bullshit. ''A forced linguistic bridge''.


Gemini What do you call this error in logic ''Transwomen are men. Men who offend aren't rare.


This structural flaw in reasoning involves a few overlapping logical and categorical errors. Depending on how the argument is broken down, it can be categorized as an equivocation of terms, a fallacy of division/association, or an unsupported generalization.
Here is how the logic breaks down structurally:

• Equivocation / Shift in Definition: The word "men" is used in the first premise to refer to biological sex or gender identity in a strict traditional sense, but the conclusion implicitly links it to behavioral statistics associated with cisgender men.
• Fallacy of Division / Faulty Generalization: Even if one accepts the premises, concluding that a specific subgroup (trans women) inherits the aggregate behavioral statistics or crime rates of an entirely different demographic (cisgender men) is an error of overgeneralization. It assumes that group-level statistical traits of a broad category apply uniformly or meaningfully to an intersecting sub-category, which ignores actual data regarding demographics and behavior.
• Guilt by Association: Structurally, the argument attempts to link a marginalized demographic to high-offense groups (such as violent offenders) through a forced linguistic bridge rather than empirical evidence.

 

[AuroraSaab]

She campaigned for women to have the vote on the same terms as men. It was an incremental campaign aimed at gradually giving women equal rights, beginningwith votes but extending to property owning etc. There were many working class suffragettes btw - it was a cross party, cross class issue. She worked with Keir Hardy at one point.

It's only women who are expected to solve every problem in the world before they are allowed to concentrate on a specific issue of their own benefit. Again, why should she expand her focus to a wider aims when others were already campaigning for all men to have the vote? She was a women's campaigner, not everybody's mum.

 

[farfromtheland]

But what did she herself say and write?

 

[monkers]

She campaigned for women to have the vote on the same terms as men. It was an incremental campaign aimed at gradually giving women equal rights, beginningwith votes but extending to property owning etc. There were many working class suffragettes btw - it was a cross party, cross class issue. She worked with Keir Hardy at one point.

It's only women who are expected to solve every problem in the world before they are allowed to concentrate on a specific issue of their own benefit. Again, why should she expand her focus to a wider aims when others were already campaigning for all men to have the vote? She was a women's campaigner, not everybody's mum.

You are explaining to an audience that already agrees that universal suffrage is essential to a functional democracy. A point you seem to be having difficulty with.

You already agreed she was not working to that standard.

What you seem to be imagining is that people can be persuaded to forget facts that inform their opinions so that they align with your own. The world doesn't work like that.

 

[AuroraSaab]

She was championing women's interests.
She was not obliged to champion men's. They were able to do that for themselves, especially as about 45% of them had the vote and political parties working in their interest in 1903. They had agency that women didn't have.

How odd that, rather than being allowed to advocate for a specific thing, the social and political fortunes of both men and the entire working class should be expected to fall on the shoulders of one woman.

In short, Emmeline Pankhurst is not your mum.

 

[farfromtheland]

She was championing women's interests.

Please forgive me for saying she was not championing my interests, as a woman, or my mum's for that matter, and provide her own words about it.

 

[monkers]

She was championing women's interests.
She was not obliged to champion men's. They were able to do that for themselves, especially as about 45% of them had the vote and political parties working in their interest in 1903. They had agency that women didn't have.

How odd that, rather than being allowed to advocate for a specific thing, the social and political fortunes of both men and the entire working class should be expected to fall on the shoulders of one woman.

In short, Emmeline Pankhurst is not your mum.

On you go repeating the same false claims about what anyone has said ad nauseum. This is what adulation looks like.

Nobody said she was obliged to do anything. Nobody said anything about ''fall on the shoulders of one woman''. Repeatedly I've used the word ''movement''.

Any of us can have our own opinions, we can't have our own facts.

 

[monkers]

So what happened to Emmeline Pankhurst? She campaigned against trades unions, and for racial purity! What?

Eugenics were very popular in the 1920s. Marie Stopes was a Eugenicist. But unlike most other feminists who were interested in choosing when to have children and how many, Pankhurst connected her eugenics to a shrill belief in the British Empire. It led her, to put it bluntly, to the same conclusions as Adolf Hitler. Treat your population as a breeding farm. Exclude anyone who came from anywhere else.

From 1917 Mrs P’s Women’s Party said it would campaign for equal pay and opportunity for women, but like Christabel it was against the trade unions, arguing that bosses should decide workers’ pay.

https://www.historycafe.org/ep-08-t...hy, today,the Secrets are out on Spotify here.

 

[monkers]

From 1920-24 Emmeline got a job in Canada, supposedly lecturing on Combating Venereal Diseases. Historian Sarah Carter has discovered that Mrs Pankhurst’s actual theme was the supremacy of the British Empire, and of British women as guardians of the British race.VD, you see, in Mrs Pankhurst’s view, was an affliction of the feeble-minded. And especially, therefore, of immigrants. Above all of Russians, who were heading for Canada by the boat load and had to be kept out at all costs. She also denounced the Indigenous Peoples, and the Chinese. Oh, and the French. Are you following her logic here?