Nivek,

Thanks for your insightful reply. I do think it's horrible that men were shamed into going to war. I think it's terrible all around, no matter where the shaming came from exactly (and I imagine there were many sources). There is one thing I don't understand.. what country (ies) are we talking about with regard to the white feather campaign? And wasn't this during the first world war? Men didn't have to the right to vote in that time frame? I thought that they did?

This thread has always been about England's voting timeline / issues... not the world, not America, not some 3rd world country. It has stated from the very first post (the article itself) that it refers specifically to England. I think you're right about men being able to vote at that time too.

England has an interesting history. In America, the white feather historically has held a different meaning altogether...but we aren't talking about the U.S. This is just one but an interesting view of the white feather campaign:

The White Feather Campaign: A Struggle with Masculinity During World War I - Published by Student Pulse

Quote from Incognito

Nivek,

Thanks for your insightful reply. I do think it's horrible that men were shamed into going to war. I think it's terrible all around, no matter where the shaming came from exactly (and I imagine there were many sources). There is one thing I don't understand.. what country (ies) are we talking about with regard to the white feather campaign? And wasn't this during the first world war? Men didn't have to the right to vote in that time frame? I thought that they did?

I speak from a UK perspective as does the OP :

1918-1928

As a reward for there sacrifices, had they lived to 1918 all men over the age of 21 were allowed to vote.

A bit of personal perspective:


i know very little of my paternal Grandfather as he was 65 when my Dad was born and died when my Dad was 11 years old, I know he fought on the Somme in the Yorks and Lancs regiment as i have his campaign medal and bayonet, i have done some basic maths based on my Dads date of birth and believe he was about 43 years old when he went to war, i am myself now 43 years old and i can tell you that the thought of that chills me to the bone, based on this and the fact that he was from neither Yorkshire or Lancashire i can only assume he was conscripted rather than a volunteer, i also know he did not own property and was a roofer by trade, so in all likelihood he did not have voting rights, i could be wrong about that as i seem to recall something about “heads of families” being able to vote but anyhow it kind of gives a good picture of the realities for the ordinary working man at that point in history.

Quote from nivek

I speak from a UK perspective as does the OP :



A bit of personal perspective:


i know very little of my paternal Grandfather as he was 65 when my Dad was born and died when my Dad was 11 years old, I know he fought on the Somme in the Yorks and Lancs regiment as i have his campaign medal and bayonet, i have done some basic maths based on my Dads date of birth and believe he was about 43 years old when he went to war, i am myself now 43 years old and i can tell you that the thought of that chills me to the bone, based on this and the fact that he was from neither Yorkshire or Lancashire i can only assume he was conscripted rather than a volunteer, i also know he did not own property and was a roofer by trade, so in all likelihood he did not have voting rights, i could be wrong about that as i seem to recall something about “heads of families” being able to vote but anyhow it kind of gives a good picture of the realities for the ordinary working man at that point in history.

Thanks for sharing that. I'm 40 years old myself and cannot begin to imagine trudging off to war with guns and bayonets at such an age....at any age, but particularly in midlife. And being forced to go .....that would be a nightmare.

Quote from Incognito

And being forced to go .....that would be a nightmare.

That's something you'll never have to contend with. Feminists would see this as misogyny, men see it as 'part of life'.

I'm very glad that there is no 'draft' in current times, but the potential for it to return remains - hence why American MEN must sign up if they expect to live the life of an ordinary citizen that women take for granted at no costs.

Quote from Marx

That's something you'll never have to contend with. Feminists would see this as misogyny, men see it as 'part of life'.

I'm very glad that there is no 'draft' in current times, but the potential for it to return remains - hence why American MEN must sign up if they expect to live the life of an ordinary citizen that women take for granted at no costs.

And that doesn't seem right or fair, does it? After all, women are as capable of combat as men, right? And if not combat (as some would say that women are not as capable as men in combat situations), then in some other forms of military duty? I agree that if "force" has to be involved (drafts, conscriptions)..women shouldn't be excluded. Of course, you can bet this topic is highly controversial for many reasons.

British army conscription from 1916, from wiki

Conscription began during World War I when the British government passed the Military Service Act in 1916. The act specified that single men 18 to 41 years old were liable to be called up for military service unless they were widowed with children or ministers of a religion. There was a system of tribunals to adjudicate upon claims for exemption upon the grounds of performing civilian work of national importance, domestic hardship, health, and conscientious objection. The law went through several changes before the war ended. Married men ceased to be exempt in June 1916, and the age limit was eventually raised to 51 years old. Recognition of work of national importance also diminished, and in the last year of the war there was some support for the conscription of clergy.[citation needed] Conscription lasted until mid-1919.


At the start of 1914 the British Army had a reported strength of 710,000 men including reserves, of which around 80,000 were regular troops ready for war. By the end of World War I almost 1 in 4 of the total male population of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland had joined, over five million men.

1 in 4 ...... interesting statistic

Even as early as June 1916 Britain was scraping the barrel for cannon fodder



UK suffrage, also from wiki

History of suffrage in the United Kingdom

See also: History of British society
See also: The Parliamentary Franchise in the United Kingdom 1885-1918
Suffrage in the United Kingdom was slowly changed over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries to allow universal suffrage through the use of the Reform Acts and the Representation of the People Acts.

• 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 persuaded 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.

as ever, wiki aint perfect but it seems to concur with what I've read elsewhere.

I believe that all men got the vote after WW1,not as some reward to those whom fought,but because of the Russian revolution,that scared the pant's of all western goverment's,so as a precaution they gave them the vote.but at the same time they brought in the first gun laws,to control the carrying a firearms on their person.

Quote from Incognito

I just don't share your view that women always "choose the back seat." Many do, but from what I've observed, many do not. Times are changing, Marx. Today women are stepping up when it comes to the military, or bumps in the night, or daring rescues, when you compare this to the past.

This is the kind of thing you should be polling your female friends and relatives about. Ask them if they think their boyfriend or husband should take a bullet for them, or support them if they don't want to work full-time, or if men should continue working the most dangerous jobs. Ask them if they prefer working for a man or a woman (you might be surprised at the answer), or if they have more faith in male airline pilots or firefighters.

Listen to what your sisters really think, don't take our word for it.

Quote from senach

I believe that all men got the vote after WW1,not as some reward to those whom fought,but because of the Russian revolution,that scared the pant's of all western goverment's,so as a precaution they gave them the vote.but at the same time they brought in the first gun laws,to control the carrying a firearms on their person.

That certainly seems a very reasonable point

Quote from Incognito

England has an interesting history. In America, the white feather historically has held a different meaning altogether...but we aren't talking about the U.S. This is just one but an interesting view of the white feather campaign:

The White Feather Campaign: A Struggle with Masculinity During World War I - Published by Student Pulse

Some good points raised in that article, but several paragraphs seemed to be dedicated to making excuses for the white feather women, quite a lot of stuff like this:

Furthermore the white feather allowed them to gain power over the men who usually ruled
them.

This is typical feminist thinking, men did not “rule women” the vast majority of men never ruled anything and probably never had any desire to, If feminists stopped peddling this myth a lot of women could avoid the huge chip on their shoulder that this gives them.


Also quite a bit of this kind of stuff:

What more does a young man want than the knowledge that women desire him and that he is
able to obtain the object of his desire?

This is just wrong, men do not and never have defined their masculinity by female approval, it plays a part but its certainly not all a man could want, the author is obviously the end result of an over feminised education system.


What i did find interesting was the parallels that could be drawn with the feminist movement its self, how it's initial intentions appeared to be reasonably well intentioned but that its eventual over reach exposed it for the shameful monstrosity that it was.

I agree, Nivek, the article seems to be written with a feminist bent to it. Men did rule women though, in the sense that men were in positions of authority not only politically, but in their home domains as well. The word "rule" has such strong connotations to it that I can see why one would want to reject it straight away. It is possible that these women (of the feather campaign) got a taste of power over men, and went crazy with it.

Men did rule women though, in the sense that men were in positions of authority not only politically, but in their home domains as well

No. SOME men were in positions of authrority and MOST men were not. The vast majority were not. Generalisations have to be from the majority, shirley?

As for the home, that was traditionally the woman's domain. Even in 'working class' homes where men - who didn't have a political vote - resided, the wife was generally the matriarch and the chap 'handed over' his wages. I can remember my dad back in the fifties handing his wage packet over to my mum.

This 'men ruled the home domain' bizzo is sheer nonesense.