So South Kora Goes To The Dogs...?
News1 min ago
Women Against Women's Suffrage
It is pretty obvious why I'm posting this: I'm attempting, perhaps mistakenly, to draw at least some analogy between the debate then, when women were fighting for decades to gain access to what we now see as one of the most basic rights, the right to vote, and the recent resurgence of Civil Rights and BLM protests.
Whether or not that's justified, the history of anti-Suffrage is interesting on its own sake. Perhaps in a sense it's obvious that this was going to happen, but there is something shocking and disheartening all the same about the reaction to women's suffrage protests, and particularly so when it came from other women. The example below, The Ladies' Battle,
written by Molly Seawell, an American author, is but one of countless others. It's so jarring to read some of the passages today. And yet, are they that out of place in modern discourse?
Here's a passage on the effect of the WSPU (the suffragettes who relied on Civil Disobedience), for example:
"... it would be unjust to confound the section of law-abiding and dignified, if mistaken, suffragists with the shrieking and savage mobs that make one shudder at the thought of entrusting them with a vote... The present Government has shown a singular vacillation concerning the frenzied women who rioted for suffrage." (pp63-65)
Here Seawell relies on the deadliest political insult:
"The tendency of women suffrage is inevitably towards Socialism, the State doing everything possible for the individual." (p 71)
Or insults the intelligence or lack of understanding of those who wanted suffrage:
"Opposition to suffrage does not mean that women should not study public affairs, and take an intelligent interest in them... it would broaden their minds, and there would be fewer suffragists." (ibid, p106).
"It is my earnest hope and belief that the sound good sense of American women will defend them from suffrage, and protect... their personal dignity. I belief women suffrage to be an unmixed evil." (p119).
It would be a shame for such a weighty tome to have missed out another key Civil Rights issue, but Seawell does not disappoint:
"it is within the memory of living men that the Government of the United States... violated every principle of constitutional government, of common sense as well as common justice, by placing the ballot [and the same civil rights] in the hands of recently emancipated slaves... only a few generations removed from cannibalism, as to the highest type of the Caucasian race, with a thousand years of civilisation behind it." (pp17-18)
It would be comforting to thinking that Seawell was a lone voice in the debate, but sadly she was not. The book itself provides many examples that purport to demonstrate, if anything, the reverse, and that suffragism was a minority pursuit. And, besides, history up until then was on her side. In the UK we are still not yet 100 years away from the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928, which finally granted women and men equal rights at the Ballot Box. In the US they will celebrate their 100-year anniversary of equal suffrage in a shade over two months.
It is, I think, timely to recall just how difficult it can be to win battles that hindsight would lead us to wonder why they were even fought at all.
https:/
Whether or not that's justified, the history of anti-Suffrage is interesting on its own sake. Perhaps in a sense it's obvious that this was going to happen, but there is something shocking and disheartening all the same about the reaction to women's suffrage protests, and particularly so when it came from other women. The example below, The Ladies' Battle,
written by Molly Seawell, an American author, is but one of countless others. It's so jarring to read some of the passages today. And yet, are they that out of place in modern discourse?
Here's a passage on the effect of the WSPU (the suffragettes who relied on Civil Disobedience), for example:
"... it would be unjust to confound the section of law-abiding and dignified, if mistaken, suffragists with the shrieking and savage mobs that make one shudder at the thought of entrusting them with a vote... The present Government has shown a singular vacillation concerning the frenzied women who rioted for suffrage." (pp63-65)
Here Seawell relies on the deadliest political insult:
"The tendency of women suffrage is inevitably towards Socialism, the State doing everything possible for the individual." (p 71)
Or insults the intelligence or lack of understanding of those who wanted suffrage:
"Opposition to suffrage does not mean that women should not study public affairs, and take an intelligent interest in them... it would broaden their minds, and there would be fewer suffragists." (ibid, p106).
"It is my earnest hope and belief that the sound good sense of American women will defend them from suffrage, and protect... their personal dignity. I belief women suffrage to be an unmixed evil." (p119).
It would be a shame for such a weighty tome to have missed out another key Civil Rights issue, but Seawell does not disappoint:
"it is within the memory of living men that the Government of the United States... violated every principle of constitutional government, of common sense as well as common justice, by placing the ballot [and the same civil rights] in the hands of recently emancipated slaves... only a few generations removed from cannibalism, as to the highest type of the Caucasian race, with a thousand years of civilisation behind it." (pp17-18)
It would be comforting to thinking that Seawell was a lone voice in the debate, but sadly she was not. The book itself provides many examples that purport to demonstrate, if anything, the reverse, and that suffragism was a minority pursuit. And, besides, history up until then was on her side. In the UK we are still not yet 100 years away from the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928, which finally granted women and men equal rights at the Ballot Box. In the US they will celebrate their 100-year anniversary of equal suffrage in a shade over two months.
It is, I think, timely to recall just how difficult it can be to win battles that hindsight would lead us to wonder why they were even fought at all.
https:/
Answers
They have equal rights by law Naomi, but they are not protected from human prejudice. As soon as someone from BAME origins goes public with instanees of racism, the response from a large part of the white population is to disbelieve them. In fact, a lot of those folk doing the disbelief are quite constant in their lack of belief. BAME complain of racism: Lies....
22:27 Tue 23rd Jun 2020
It's not actually a long read, as the 120 pages are basically a5 size. As to whether the premise is shaky, I'm (obviously) not convinced, but even setting that aside it ought to be thought-provoking, no?
As far as I can tell the premise is deemed shaky essentially because of the benefit of hindsight. To modern eyes, opposition to suffrage is utterly misguided, so trying to draw any lessons from it must also be misguided. But that's clearly a modern perspective. At the time, an intellectually-compelling argument could be developed to explain why what we now understand to be a basic human right was "really" only a privilege, that no woman deserved and would indeed make her "worse off".
Nor is this even a unique story. Every attempt to introduce what we'd now regard as basic human rights produces the same pushback, the same claim that this is just the way of things, etc etc. Have we left all that behind? How will history judge this debate in a century? I don't know. But it's hard to imagine history suggesting that humanity had peaked already and 2020 was the time to stop complaining about societal and racial injustices.
As far as I can tell the premise is deemed shaky essentially because of the benefit of hindsight. To modern eyes, opposition to suffrage is utterly misguided, so trying to draw any lessons from it must also be misguided. But that's clearly a modern perspective. At the time, an intellectually-compelling argument could be developed to explain why what we now understand to be a basic human right was "really" only a privilege, that no woman deserved and would indeed make her "worse off".
Nor is this even a unique story. Every attempt to introduce what we'd now regard as basic human rights produces the same pushback, the same claim that this is just the way of things, etc etc. Have we left all that behind? How will history judge this debate in a century? I don't know. But it's hard to imagine history suggesting that humanity had peaked already and 2020 was the time to stop complaining about societal and racial injustices.
They have equal rights by law Naomi, but they are not protected from human prejudice. As soon as someone from BAME origins goes public with instanees of racism, the response from a large part of the white population is to disbelieve them. In fact, a lot of those folk doing the disbelief are quite constant in their lack of belief.
BAME complain of racism: Lies.
LGBTQ+ complain about prejudice: Lies.
Women complain about sexual assault: Lies.
Nobody believes the victims here. There is always an rationale for disbelieving the claims, whether it's a lack of evidence, justification for the perpetrators acts, not recognizing that the prejudice exists (or in the case of Trans folk, not recognizing that THEY exist), belief that the victims are doing it for money/attention, wondering why old instances of abuse where not reported at the time.
There is always a reason why people who are unaffected by certain events continue to question their existence. And I don't see how that will ever change.
BAME complain of racism: Lies.
LGBTQ+ complain about prejudice: Lies.
Women complain about sexual assault: Lies.
Nobody believes the victims here. There is always an rationale for disbelieving the claims, whether it's a lack of evidence, justification for the perpetrators acts, not recognizing that the prejudice exists (or in the case of Trans folk, not recognizing that THEY exist), belief that the victims are doing it for money/attention, wondering why old instances of abuse where not reported at the time.
There is always a reason why people who are unaffected by certain events continue to question their existence. And I don't see how that will ever change.
mozz: "BAME complain of racism: Lies." - When the boy cries wolf every time then is it any surprise when they are ignored when a real wolf appears? You're talking about a sort of unofficial apartheid and I have seen very little evidence of that. All I see is the race card being played everyday over the slightest thing. Don't tell me you haven't experienced that in even the most innocuous situation. I work in a huge multinational bank and we have all ethnic the groups in high positions. My previous manager was a Vietnamese boat person for gawd sake. My current manager was brought up on an indian rubbish tip. They worked hard, got qualified, got hired. Like I did and thousands like me. There is no "privilege" of any colour, you just do what you have to. The world is NOT fair, live with it.
Fat chance TTT.
The real reason for jims post is because he (and Allen and Mozz) all support the BLM movement. This is a far left anarchist movement who wish to impose their views on the majority, those views being abolish the Police, abolish capitalism, Close jails. They want to be the leaders of a Police State which sits very well with the views of the three above judging by their many posts on the subject.
To claim BLM is the same as the suffragettes is a real insult to those ladies.
The real reason for jims post is because he (and Allen and Mozz) all support the BLM movement. This is a far left anarchist movement who wish to impose their views on the majority, those views being abolish the Police, abolish capitalism, Close jails. They want to be the leaders of a Police State which sits very well with the views of the three above judging by their many posts on the subject.
To claim BLM is the same as the suffragettes is a real insult to those ladies.
The most probable reason for lack of Black people at the top is down to the chip on the shoulder. If you go around wanting special treatment and blaming your lack of promotion on your colour (and yes I have seen it) you wont get to the top. To blame it all on racism is nonsense as I have seen plenty of Asian and Indian people in top positions (just look at the Tory Cabinet).
*YAWWWWN*
Same ol' song being sung I see Tora, and I'm sure everyone will be here to back you up and call me a fascist soon. (I do so love it when the right wingers here call us lefties "fascists" without any sense of irony)
Whether you accept it or not, racism exists, whether it's corrupt coppers beating blacks to death over the pond, or a some kid being racially profiled because their skin is the wrong colour over here, it's in every walk of life.
Whether you admit it exists or not, things are changing all around us and no matter how you and yours shout and stomp about it, you're powerless to stop it. Which is kind of funny.
//there's the real BA jim//
Trumpet blowing notwithstanding, I suspect Jim might disagree.
Same ol' song being sung I see Tora, and I'm sure everyone will be here to back you up and call me a fascist soon. (I do so love it when the right wingers here call us lefties "fascists" without any sense of irony)
Whether you accept it or not, racism exists, whether it's corrupt coppers beating blacks to death over the pond, or a some kid being racially profiled because their skin is the wrong colour over here, it's in every walk of life.
Whether you admit it exists or not, things are changing all around us and no matter how you and yours shout and stomp about it, you're powerless to stop it. Which is kind of funny.
//there's the real BA jim//
Trumpet blowing notwithstanding, I suspect Jim might disagree.
//The real reason for jims post is because he (and Allen and Mozz) all support the BLM movement.//
Actually, there's much about BLM I do disagree with, the demonetisation of the police being foremost in that. I do however, want to see a world where racism and prejudice is frowned upon, not encouraged or welcomed.
Actually, there's much about BLM I do disagree with, the demonetisation of the police being foremost in that. I do however, want to see a world where racism and prejudice is frowned upon, not encouraged or welcomed.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Film, Media & TV5 mins ago
Film, Media & TV6 mins ago
News6 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.