Thread: Has anyone ever thought about it like this...?

And, on the same note, the very fact that feminism has been allowed to thrive, and is so prevalent in the world of politics, is evidence that it isn't, in fact, needed.

Quote from dyslexic_banana

And, on the same note, the very fact that feminism has been allowed to thrive, and is so prevalent in the world of politics, is evidence that it isn't, in fact, needed.

Unfortunately, most politicians believe that the female vote depends on the perpetuation of this myth, while they think that the male vote depends non gender issues. Until either, or both, of these ideas change, I can't see things improving for men.

It is difficult to find an answer because it requires a generalisation sort of statement.

At the end of the day it depends on where you stand in the complexity of the relationship.

NEVO

You're quite right. The same can be said of the so-called 'patriarchy'. If an all powerful, conspiratorial male patriarchy really existed, the changes of the last 40 years simply would not have happened. There would have been a hell of a lot more conflict than there was -- when in fact society-changing things like no-fault divorce were passed quickly and without protest. The protest has only come more recently, and by a handful of men -- clearly not an all-powerful, transcendent 'patriarchy'. Much the same can be said for sexism as well, as you point out.

Women have forever been the favored sex, not the oppressed sex. The only way you can possibly view women as being "oppressed" historically to any significant degree over the course of history is by retroactively applying 20th and 21st century norms about individual rights to periods prior to the mid 19th century -- in other words, by failing to look at the prior historical periods in their own contexts, and instead misapplying backwards contemporary ideas of individual rights, and finding the earlier periods "oppressive". It's a non-historical analysis and frankly it's twaddle. But it's also now the "received wisdom".

The only thing feminism has been correct about was the reality that extending the vote to women lagged -- but very slightly. In the United States, the property qualifications for voting weren't removed fully until the civil war (1860s), whereas women got the vote in 1920 -- so a 60 year lag. In the UK, my understanding is that voting rights were gradually extended to more and more men in the latter part of the 19th century through the gradual removal of property holding requirements, and then to women and all men in 1928. So, yes, female access to the vote lagged slightly behind universal male access to the vote, but that was fixed in the 1920s.

As for the rest of it, it's mostly bunk.

You Dysle I can kind of understand were you are coming from with this post, Basicly you are saying since women have things better then men that it's time for them to such the hell up now that they basicly have what they want?

If that's the case then they can stop flapping their gums or other wise people well see that it's not the women who are being opressed but that it's men who are the ones being opressed and then they would lose off the speical perks they have now in favour of true equilty but since the goverment is making a killing with this whole femanazi movement so they suport the sick system at the exspence of men

Quote from novaseeker

It's a non-historical analysis and frankly it's twaddle. But it's also now the "received wisdom".

The sad thing is that a couple of historians I previously liked and respected are now guilty of this. Intelligent men as well.

Quote from novaseeker

The only thing feminism has been correct about was the reality that extending the vote to women lagged -- but very slightly. In the United States, the property qualifications for voting weren't removed fully until the civil war (1860s), whereas women got the vote in 1920 -- so a 60 year lag. In the UK, my understanding is that voting rights were gradually extended to more and more men in the latter part of the 19th century through the gradual removal of property holding requirements, and then to women and all men in 1928. So, yes, female access to the vote lagged slightly behind universal male access to the vote, but that was fixed in the 1920s.

As for the rest of it, it's mostly bunk.

UK women achieved universal female suffrage just ten years after men achieved universal male suffrage:

• • Reform Act 1832 - extended voting rights to adult males who rented propertied land of a certain value, so allowing 1 in 7 males in the UK voting rights
  • Reform Act 1867 - enfranchised all male householders, so increasing male suffrage to the United Kingdom
  • Representation of the People Act 1884 - amended the Reform Act of 1867 so that it would apply equally to the countryside; this brought the voting population to 5,500,000, although 40% of males were still disenfranchised, whilst women could not vote
  • Between 1885-1918 moves were made by the suffragette movement to ensure votes for women. However, the duration of the First World War stopped this reform movement. See also The Parliamentary Franchise in the United Kingdom 1885-1918.
  • Representation of the People Act 1918 - the consequences of World War I convinced the government to expand the right to vote, not only for the many men who fought in the war who were disenfranchised, but also for the women who helped in the factories and elsewhere as part of the war effort. Property restrictions for voting were lifted for men, who could vote at 21; however women's votes were given with these property restrictions, and were limited to those over 30 years old. This raised the electorate from 7.7 million to 21.4 million with women making up 40% of the electorate. Seven percent of the electorate had more than one vote. The first election with this system was the United Kingdom general election, 1918
  • Representation of the People Act 1928 - this made women's voting rights equal with men, with voting possible at 21 with no property restrictions
  • Representation of the People Act 1948 - the act was passed to prevent plural voting
  • Representation of the People Act 1969 - extension of suffrage to those 18 and older
  • The Representation of the People Acts of 1983, 1985 and 2000 further modified voting
  • Electoral Administration Act 2006 - modified the ways in which people were able to vote and reduced the age of standing at a public election from 21 to 18.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage
.

Thanks for the info -- even less of a lag than I thought.

feminism was utilised by the state for reasons that a more to do with the farming of human slaves than any supposed altruistic reasons that would truly benefit women..

Looking at a blunt piece of evidence, for many many decades, centuries, female lifespan was significantly longer than males..

Now the gap is closing as women are also getting the work related diseases (stress, I guess is what is helping to close the gap, because as we all know, men still do the main share of the truly toxic and dangerous work!)

Men dont unite on the basis of gender, this was demonstrated by the work of moxon as we have seen (not that it is really news!)..

So, why do we suddenly expect "the laws of physics" to change just because we think it would be "nice" if they did?

If they wont unite on gender, then maybe they could be united on another basis..

Thickheaded MRA's just wont see that though will they?

So far the most popular basis has been "equality", but that can be seen to be flawed as equality is most definately not only impossible, it also demands the state to admininster it..

I suggest the family is the banner we need to unite under, what is best for families, the basic social unit..

Worth a try surely?

To my mind, if folk keep failing over and over, they need to occasionally try a different approach..

10 years of headbanging on brick walls has achieved reverse progress..

Quote from novaseeker

The only thing feminism has been correct about was the reality that extending the vote to women lagged -- but very slightly. In the United States, the property qualifications for voting weren't removed fully until the civil war (1860s), whereas women got the vote in 1920 -- so a 60 year lag. In the UK, my understanding is that voting rights were gradually extended to more and more men in the latter part of the 19th century through the gradual removal of property holding requirements, and then to women and all men in 1928. So, yes, female access to the vote lagged slightly behind universal male access to the vote, but that was fixed in the 1920s.

I don't entirely agree with this. During my lifetime my vote, and my very freedom, has been conditional on my willingness to fight and die for my country. When womens' lack of franchise is put to me as having been an example of oppression I now ask when men actually gained full and unencumbered franchise. In many western countries, including the US, men still do not have this.

In Australia men DID NOT have franchise unencumbered by obligations up to their potential death until 1973. Prior to universal franchise for women many women could actually vote. Franchise was conditional for all and some women could meet those conditions. Women voted in Australia in the mid 1800's because they owned property. I believe some women voted in the first US presidential election. Women had the vote unconditionally long before men. Many men still don't have that privilege even today.

Quote from gwallan

I don't entirely agree with this. During my lifetime my vote, and my very freedom, has been conditional on my willingness to fight and die for my country. When womens' lack of franchise is put to me as having been an example of oppression I now ask when men actually gained full and unencumbered franchise. In many western countries, including the US, men still do not have this.

In Australia men DID NOT have franchise unencumbered by obligations up to their potential death until 1973. Prior to universal franchise for women many women could actually vote. Franchise was conditional for all and some women could meet those conditions. Women voted in Australia in the mid 1800's because they owned property. I believe some women voted in the first US presidential election. Women had the vote unconditionally long before men. Many men still don't have that privilege even today.

These are good points.

I suggest the family is the banner we need to unite under, what is best for families, the basic social unit..

Worth a try surely?

How does the family issue play politically in the UK? In the US, it's kind of political code for political conservatism, or at least the "family values" type people tend to congregate on the conservative side of the spectrum -- which also happens to be where most of the men are congregated, politically, so it's not really a bad idea. In the US, women tend to be very left politically until they marry and have kids, and then they split between the two parties.

Quote from novaseeker

These are good points.



How does the family issue play politically in the UK? In the US, it's kind of political code for political conservatism, or at least the "family values" type people tend to congregate on the conservative side of the spectrum -- which also happens to be where most of the men are congregated, politically, so it's not really a bad idea. In the US, women tend to be very left politically until they marry and have kids, and then they split between the two parties.

Frankly, its all a mess when it comes to the family politically.

Its easy to see how all parties claim to be pro-family, but in reality, are anything but..

Full of paradoxical twists at every turn..

There is no "family friendly" party in the UK, unless families really want the state to run every aspect of their lives, and steal their children, while asking them to pay for it!

Dyslexic B, you are reading right. It is nutty.

But par for the course.

It begs the question that if everyone agrees that there is sexism against women, who the fuck is doing it? Are all these people saying that they are sexist against women? Of course not. It's YOU. Or me.

The same invertion of fault is being seen on our TV screens right now. Obama Hysteria. Everyone is going on about him being a black man and how it has put paid to racism. "It is so wonderful having a Black as President".

Can you imagine the furore if TV commentators enthused over President Sarkozi (spel) being white? Or Wee Goordie Broon. ("I may be a Scot, but I am a WHITE Scot, auch aye the noo") George Bush would have been impeached if he claimed that him being white was a great day for America. But the racists on the left and black sides who are orgasming over Obama's skin seem to think they have some moral ascendancy. Friggin' lunatic.

I even heard a panel of people talking about how Martin Luther King would be overjoyed at Obama. Have they no idea what King said ??? Where is the 'content of Character instead of the colour of his skin' bit? Nowhere to be heard. They have stolen MLK and twisted his views and have the damned nerve to eulegise.

And get this: Obama is no more black than he is white, for God's sake !

Disclaimer:

the writer is not Racist. I like white people. Some of my best friends are white.
Not sexist either. Some of my best friends are men.

Quote from novaseeker

You're quite right. The same can be said of the so-called 'patriarchy'. If an all powerful, conspiratorial male patriarchy really existed, the changes of the last 40 years simply would not have happened. There would have been a hell of a lot more conflict than there was -- when in fact society-changing things like no-fault divorce were passed quickly and without protest. The protest has only come more recently, and by a handful of men -- clearly not an all-powerful, transcendent 'patriarchy'. Much the same can be said for sexism as well, as you point out.

Women have forever been the favored sex, not the oppressed sex. The only way you can possibly view women as being "oppressed" historically to any significant degree over the course of history is by retroactively applying 20th and 21st century norms about individual rights to periods prior to the mid 19th century -- in other words, by failing to look at the prior historical periods in their own contexts, and instead misapplying backwards contemporary ideas of individual rights, and finding the earlier periods "oppressive". It's a non-historical analysis and frankly it's twaddle. But it's also now the "received wisdom".

The only thing feminism has been correct about was the reality that extending the vote to women lagged -- but very slightly. In the United States, the property qualifications for voting weren't removed fully until the civil war (1860s), whereas women got the vote in 1920 -- so a 60 year lag. In the UK, my understanding is that voting rights were gradually extended to more and more men in the latter part of the 19th century through the gradual removal of property holding requirements, and then to women and all men in 1928. So, yes, female access to the vote lagged slightly behind universal male access to the vote, but that was fixed in the 1920s.

As for the rest of it, it's mostly bunk.

In the U.S.:

Page 12 "Constitutional Values" (copyright 2009):

"Women were not extended the right to vote by the new constitution. In fact, it appears that there was no discussion of the issue at the Constitutional Convention. Women were not excluded entirely from political processes during this period, however. For example, the New Jersey Constitution of 1776 extended the vote to women who owned property (African Americans were also allowed to vote.) This was changed, however, in 1807 when the New Jersey Constitution was amended to restrict suffrage to men.

The women's suffrage movement can be traced back to Abigail Adams, wife of President John Adams. Later, feminists such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony led the women's suffrage movement that resulted in the Nineteenth Amendment (1920), which extended the right to vote to women."

Quote from TERA

In the U.S.:

Page 12 "Constitutional Values" (copyright 2009):

"Women were not extended the right to vote by the new constitution. In fact, it appears that there was no discussion of the issue at the Constitutional Convention. Women were not excluded entirely from political processes during this period, however. For example, the New Jersey Constitution of 1776 extended the vote to women who owned property (African Americans were also allowed to vote.) This was changed, however, in 1807 when the New Jersey Constitution was amended to restrict suffrage to men.

The women's suffrage movement can be traced back to Abigail Adams, wife of President John Adams. Later, feminists such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony led the women's suffrage movement that resulted in the Nineteenth Amendment (1920), which extended the right to vote to women."

Yes, but remember that most states had property requirements for men, meaning that the vast majority of men were *also* excluded from the vote until the mid 19th century. Even after that things like the poll tax and the like continued to exclude poor men. It's decidedly *not* the case that all men had the vote from 1790.