Why did the suffragettes fight to vote but not to register for the draft - Suffragette (2015) Discussion

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 8 years ago

It is a paradox... or is it just exposing the hypocrisy? How could they not think about fighting for equal responsibility with equal privilege?? Because they don't want equal responsibility. Even delusional psychos like flower posting on this board have no idea what equal responsibility really looks like.

Get off your soapbox while I play you a tune on the tiniest violin.

reply

[–] melanie_sun 8 years ago

I'm sorry you think this way. But did you know why UK passed the "vote for women" law for the first time in 1918, when WWI just ended? Because women played a crucial role in this war. They helped to pull this country together while their men were out risking their lives. Can you imagine what this country would have been like if no one had stayed behind and took care of the kids and nursed the injured soldiers? If you research the women's sacrifice in WWI, you will find plenty. Women participated in the war in a different way, because biologically women are not as strong as men, so it would be a bad military strategy to put women in front against foreign armies. But their work and sacrifice should not go unnoticed. They didn't shovel their responsiblity. On the contrary, British women did a pretty good job and earned their right to vote. And I also must point out that those who don't want responsibility shouldn't call themselves a feminist. If you read Beauvoir, you will see that true feminism is about empowering women, not spoiling them, nor is feminism in any way against men. I know there are different voices in feminism, but I only acknowledge the ones who fight for gender equality, not just for women, but for men as well.

reply

[–] iAmTheOneWhoKnocks 8 years ago

I'm sorry you think this way. But did you know why UK passed the "vote for women" law for the first time in 1918, when WWI just ended? Because women played a crucial role in this war. They helped to pull this country together while their men were out risking their lives. Can you imagine what this country would have been like if no one had stayed behind and took care of the kids and nursed the injured soldiers?

Yes. It would have been terrible. So why didn't women fight to fight alongside men and relieve them of some of the burden of, oh I don't know, DYING?! Clearly they had the power to make change happen for their voting rights. Imagine what they could have accomplished if they chose instead of enlist as snipers and infantry? Why didn't they?

If you research the women's sacrifice in WWI, you will find plenty. Women participated in the war in a different way, because biologically women are not as strong as men, so it would be a bad military strategy to put women in front against foreign armies.

But that's the only way men acquired their right to vote. men were expected to die for their service to their country. That's where they earned the right to choose their leader. Women did not make any such sacrifices for their country. That's why they did not have the right to vote. Voting came with bloodshed. If women wanted to fight on the battlefield then they would have deserved the right to vote. But they didn't. Taking care of your kids and helping out soldiers was not enough to vote. How else could you possibly expect men to risk their lives for their country if they could easily just take the woman's position and look after children and nurse the soldiers on the field and still acquire the same rights to choose your leader? That's not exactly fair.

But their work and sacrifice should not go unnoticed. They didn't shovel their responsiblity. On the contrary, British women did a pretty good job and earned their right to vote.

No they didn't. Their work and sacrifice never went unnoticed, but it was not the same thing as sacrificing your life for your country. Nowhere close.

And I also must point out that those who don't want responsibility shouldn't call themselves a feminist. If you read Beauvoir, you will see that true feminism is about empowering women, not spoiling them, nor is feminism in any way against men.

What feminism is and what feminism SAYS that it is, are worlds apart. Otherwise, why didn't women protest to take up the mantle men had been dealt to acquire their right to vote? Only a handful of women throughout history actually exuded the qualities feminists claim to possess. Joan of Arc and Mulan come to mind. Those women should have been granted every bit the privileges men had.

I know there are different voices in feminism, but I only acknowledge the ones who fight for gender equality, not just for women, but for men as well.

But the movement as a whole is founded not on equality, but on greed. Again it just goes back to the suffragettes. Women who fought for the right to vote, and not for the ability to shed blood for it.

reply

[–] melanie_sun 8 years ago

This is exactly the kind of response that I expected. You won't understand and I'm not going to sit here and try to persuade you. Take a look at Emma Watson's #HeforShe campaign speech. That's true feminism. And if you continue to hold a hostile view. So be it.

reply

[–] iAmTheOneWhoKnocks 8 years ago

This is exactly the kind of response that I expected. You won't understand and I'm not going to sit here and try to persuade you.

This is exactly the kind of response that I expected. Every time a feminist gets cornered they pull out the 'you just don't understand feminism' card. I dismantled everything you said with honest questions and reasoning and because YOU can't come up with a better argument, I'M the one that doesn't understand. This is feminism 101.

Take a look at Emma Watson's #HeforShe campaign speech. That's true feminism.

Take a look at the campaign's NAME. #HEforSHE? Why is feminism always about men doing things for women? Why can't women seem to achieve anything without begging men to do it for them? Not very empowering IMO. Why not the other way around for a change? What would be wrong with #SHEforHE? Why is a movement allegedly founded on equality called FEMinism and not something a little more egalitarian? True feminism, at it's core, is not about equality. It's about privileges without the responsibilities.

And if you continue to hold a hostile view. So be it.

What's hostile about my view?

reply

[–] rascal67 8 years ago

Take a look at the campaign's NAME. #HEforSHE? Why is feminism always about men doing things for women? Why can't women seem to achieve anything without begging men to do it for them? Not very empowering IMO.
_________________
Emma Watson wouldn't know how to empower herself, even if she was given full reign of the kingdom and could make any rules and laws she wanted to. She would likely turn all men into slaves for women, just like feminists believe men have done to them. I guess it would make her no better. Can't stand the sight of her.

Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:💩

reply

[–] rascal67 8 years ago

Emma Watson is a spoiled delusional twat and so are you. You are looking up to her for inspiration, when she is only playing the fool. She is skinny and bland and has no screen presence whatsoever. Because of her physique and being female, she will blame men for the lack of quality film roles, when she is not even ideal or suitable.

Also, women only want equality on their own terms and want extra free passes for feeling special and precious as a gender. The suffragette movement was not some big epic struggle and it has been glorified all out of proportion by short-sighted and bitter feminists who can't see how vile they were in not protesting the government for allowing the men in their lives to get slaughtered. All they cared about were their own selfish means and wanted more for themselves when men had and still are the main protectors of society for both women and other men. You are only needed for procreation of the species and most men wouldn't even bother with you if he didn't want a vagina to stick his d!ck into.

Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:💩

reply

[–] all4sunni 8 years ago

Assuming that this is a serious question (rather than a flame attempt) I'll respond. Women wanted control over their own property, their own money, and their own children, which they were not legally allowed at that time. They wanted the right to divorce men who beat them and otherwise mistreated them. Women wanted the vote so that they could improve working conditions in factories where many of them worked.

From the US, for context
“In the early 1860s, North Carolina Chief Justice Richmond Pearson denied the divorce petition of a woman who claimed her husband had horsewhipped her. He noted in his decision: ‘The law gives the husband power to use the degree of force necessary to make the wife behave and know her place.’ ”

This is in reference to a factory fire in New York City in 1911
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire

If the victims of the shirtwaist factory fire had been able to vote, they could have better petitioned for improved working conditions.

reply

[–] iAmTheOneWhoKnocks 8 years ago

But when men 'owned women' they were also expected to be the breadwinner. A woman earning her own money at the time was not expected to help pay for the family. That fell on the man. A woman's money was hers to do with as she pleased, while a man's paycheck was used to provide for the house, bills, and children. He didn't really have anything left over for himself. His money was the family's money while his wife's money was her. That's not exactly what I would call equal. It makes perfect sense why men would have control over her paycheck. Wouldn't you? If your spouse that was earning money didn't chip in at all for the bills and went spending it on coats and shoes?

And the reason why women had no control over her children was again, because men were the breadwinners. They were the ones earning the money. They were the ones that could provide a roof over their children's head. Why wouldn't the breadwinner be charged with acting as the child's guardian?

reply

[–] briasteller 8 years ago

You have GOT to be kidding me? BIOLOGICALLY MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT. Just because there are differences in biology does not mean one sex has control over the other.

I just read this whole argument and your responses are silly. You are saying because women "did not want" to register for draft means that they should have no control over their lives or a right to vote? So, its OK for men to verbally/physically ABUSE their wives, not to mention own them?

The reason for women not being on the front lines is easy, like the other poster said, a biological difference. Not to mention, women helped out in many many ways in WW1. Women are not the disposable sex. Can men nurse a baby? Don't think so. Women were needed at home/nursing because of their NATURAL BIOLOGICAL TENDENCIES. Men are naturally more aggressive, women are natural caretakers.

Your argument makes no sense. To say feminists are greedy and just want to be cushioned by men is prosperous. If you haven't experienced being a women, your argument isn't valid.

Nothing is more frustrating then a person who has no experience being oppressed (in this context) telling the oppressed group how wrong they are.

reply

[–] iAmTheOneWhoKnocks 8 years ago

You have GOT to be kidding me? BIOLOGICALLY MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT. Just because there are differences in biology does not mean one sex has control over the other.

It wasn't because men were stronger than women that they had control over them, it's because they were the breadwinners that they had control over them.

I just read this whole argument and your responses are silly. You are saying because women "did not want" to register for draft means that they should have no control over their lives or a right to vote?

Correct. They shouldn't. If they want the privileges of being a man, they should accept the responsibilities of being a man. That means sacrificing your life when your country calls for it. Why should men sacrifice their lives in war if they could simply look after children and and still get the same results? That's bullsh!t.

So, its OK for men to verbally/physically ABUSE their wives, not to mention own them?

Who said ANYTHING about it being ok for husbands to physically and verbally abuse their wives? If husbands abuse their wives then the wife should have chosen a better husband. That's not my problem or anyone else's. Maybe if those women were more conservative/selective with who was going to father their children, they wouldn't have to suffer through any of that. Unfortunately women have a natural attraction to bad boys. That's the result. Blame them, not men.

The reason for women not being on the front lines is easy, like the other poster said, a biological difference. Not to mention, women helped out in many many ways in WW1. Women are not the disposable sex. Can men nurse a baby? Don't think so. Women were needed at home/nursing because of their NATURAL BIOLOGICAL TENDENCIES. Men are naturally more aggressive, women are natural caretakers.

Then if women are such natural caretakers and nurses then why did they fight for the right to invade the workforce and abandon their natural housewife disposition? Why were women given any rights at all if, according to your own words, they are naturally better caregivers and nurses? Women stayed at home for that very reason while men did all the aggression in war/work. If women weren't happy being their natural docile selves and fought to make change, then so to, should this be such a change. You can't have it both ways.

Isn't feminism about abandoning the differences between men and women? The suffragettes fought to prove that women can do anything men can do right? Well then women should be making sacrifices in the exact same ways that men do. And it's not just war that women are avoiding in droves, it's policing, mining, oil rigging, construction, waste collection, logging, and all manner of physically excruciating jobs that men are forced to deal with because women refuse to. Where is all the feminism for THOSE jobs? Why do we only ever hear of the glass ceiling when it's the nice cushy CEO positions?

Your argument makes no sense. To say feminists are greedy and just want to be cushioned by men is prosperous. If you haven't experienced being a women, your argument isn't valid.

That's a little ironic considering the entire feminist narrative is that men have always had all the power throughout history and have propped themselves up like kings at women's expense. How can they make such claims? They never experienced being a man right? But that's somehow ok. When faced with the experience of being a man, they abandon ship.

Nothing is more frustrating then a person who has no experience being oppressed (in this context) telling the oppressed group how wrong they are.

What 'oppression' are you talking about exactly? When I think of oppression, I'm thinking of things like American slavery, the Spanish inquisition, the underground railroads, the Armenian genocide, the genocide of the American Indians, concentration camps in WWII, child soldiers being raised in Africa, women being stoned to death in the middle east, THOSE are the things that spring to mind when I hear the word 'oppression'.

What I'm NOT thinking about is cooking dinner for your family, doing the laundry, dusting the house, making breakfast and then watching day time tv for the remainder of the day. Was I wrong this whole time?

reply

[–] rosebigham 8 years ago

They shouldn't. If they want the privileges of being a man, they should accept the responsibilities of being a man. That means sacrificing your life when your country calls for it. Why should men sacrifice their lives in war if they could simply look after children and and still get the same results? That's bullsh!t.

First that's ridiculous. Women don't want the privileges and responsibilities of being a man, they want the privileges and responsibilities of being a HUMAN.

As far as right to vote/responsibility to be drafted: You are comparing apples to oranges. if women are working as well as their husbands, then everyone in the household is paying income taxes. Paying taxes with no ability to vote: it's called taxation without representation, and the US went to actual war to secure the right to elect their own representatives. If you cannot get past your sexist, biased reasons why women should only protest for the right to vote IF they fight for something else, unrelated? It makes no sense.

I won't even to attempt extract ANY logic in your remaining misogynist comments which make zero sense.

Women didn't fight for the right to join the workforce until AFTER they were compelled to help the war effort in WWII, and once they were done .. . since they had already been working out of the house and earning a paycheck . . well, you cannot unring that bell. I understand that it was a difficult time when able-bodied men returned from war to find that their mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters had been <gasp!> working! And that they liked it, and many women opted to stay working instead of going back home and being a traditional wife. Once they got a taste of freedom ..

Women didn't serve in the military in the World Wars because someone had to stay behind to take care of children, the elderly, and the disabled who were not busy being soldiers OR recovering from being one (plus it never been done before). The women at home managed rations for flour, sugar, meat, etc. as well as grew whatever that food they could. No one was putting money into running household as you say, unless GIs specifically directed that some of they pay get sent back home; even then it didn't stretch to feed everyone. Then when the war effort got desperate, they sent women to 'men's' hardcore jobs in factories making military weapons. And they got paychecks, and paid taxes .. . and deserved the vote! Obviously.

No, women have not faced the draft here in the US - but neither have any males since the Vietnam war roughly 50 years ago! Even so, I attempted to register for the draft just after I turned 18 many years ago, but they wouldn't accept my registration because I'm a women. I was worried about all of my male friends registering right when we start fighting in Libya, many years ago.

Women can join all branches of the military NOW, but the military (until recently) would not allow women in combat position as well as a number of things. I have heard rumblings that things are changing; women will be allowed in *some* combat positions, and women may someday soon be required to face registering for the draft. If you want to know why women are not already being drafted, it is because the institutional patriarchy cannot stand to see their daughters come home in body bags (although it's okay for their sons? What?) There are tons of women who are eager to serve - fully serve, that is - in America's war efforts when needed. Those women HAVE been fighting to serve in combat areas for years as the pay is higher, and it's the only way to move up the career ladder long-term.

So if you want women to be forced to register for the draft then you need to convince all of the fathers in this country that their daughters must fight to defend America's freedoms as much as their sons do. Even so, that fight has *absolutely nothing* to do with voting rights! Cripes. We pay taxes; WE VOTE. The end.

reply

[–] iAmTheOneWhoKnocks 8 years ago

First that's ridiculous. Women don't want the privileges and responsibilities of being a man, they want the privileges and responsibilities of being a HUMAN.

But they don't. They just want the privileges, not the responsibilities.

As far as right to vote/responsibility to be drafted: You are comparing apples to oranges. if women are working as well as their husbands, then everyone in the household is paying income taxes. Paying taxes with no ability to vote: it's called taxation without representation, and the US went to actual war to secure the right to elect their own representatives. If you cannot get past your sexist, biased reasons why women should only protest for the right to vote IF they fight for something else, unrelated? It makes no sense.

Paying taxes isn't what secured your right to vote during the suffragette era, fighting was. Paying taxes rewarded you with roads, and schools, and police, and firefighters. You know, things that reward you with your taxes today. Completely unrelated to voting.

I won't even to attempt extract ANY logic in your remaining misogynist comments which make zero sense.

Then you should have stopped replying.

Women didn't fight for the right to join the workforce until AFTER they were compelled to help the war effort in WWII, and once they were done .. . since they had already been working out of the house and earning a paycheck . . well, you cannot unring that bell.

We're not talking about the workforce, we're talking about war. Why didn't they fight for their right to die like men had to?

I understand that it was a difficult time when able-bodied men returned from war to find that their mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters had been <gasp!> working! And that they liked it, and many women opted to stay working instead of going back home and being a traditional wife. Once they got a taste of freedom ..

Oh yes the horrific torment of slaving over your family was surely oppressive. The freedom of taking orders from your boss and superiors and beckoning to their every whim is much more liberating. Why take orders from your husband when you can take orders from your BOSS?! BIG step up! 

Women didn't serve in the military in the World Wars because someone had to stay behind to take care of children, the elderly, and the disabled who were not busy being soldiers OR recovering from being one (plus it never been done before). The women at home managed rations for flour, sugar, meat, etc. as well as grew whatever that food they could. No one was putting money into running household as you say, unless GIs specifically directed that some of they pay get sent back home; even then it didn't stretch to feed everyone. Then when the war effort got desperate, they sent women to 'men's' hardcore jobs in factories making military weapons. And they got paychecks, and paid taxes .. . and deserved the vote! Obviously.

Except they didn't. Because not once throughout this history lesson have you told me why women didn't fight for for the right to get drafted instead of taking up the mantle at home. Why? Doing chores in men's stead is no excuse. Men could have been doing those chores in women's place. Why didn't women fight to have men staying at home while they got shipped off to war? It's hypocritical to the fullest extent. They were nothing more than a bunch of freeloaders living off the coattails of men.

No, women have not faced the draft here in the US - but neither have any males since the Vietnam war roughly 50 years ago! Even so, I attempted to register for the draft just after I turned 18 many years ago, but they wouldn't accept my registration because I'm a women. I was worried about all of my male friends registering right when we start fighting in Libya, many years ago.

But did you take up the torch and start protesting the streets because they wouldn't allow you to enlist? No. No woman has. That's the point. Men didn't allow women to vote either prior to the suffragettes, but they sure as hell found enough motivation to fight for that didn't they? This is what I'm talking about. The sweeping hypocrisy of it all.

Women can join all branches of the military NOW, but the military (until recently) would not allow women in combat position as well as a number of things.

So? You're just going to wait around until men decided to allow women the right to register? Well then why didn't you just wait around for men to decide when to let women vote as well? If men don't let women fight in the military oh well, I guess that's just the way life works right? But men not letting women vote? OH HELL NO! Women seem very easy to give up on male oppression when it means their safety and security.

I have heard rumblings that things are changing; women will be allowed in *some* combat positions, and women may someday soon be required to face registering for the draft.

And still not a single woman organizing a protest rally to enlist in frontline infantry. North Korea has a female soldier squad, Kurdistan has a female soldier squad. Why don't we? Why aren't feminists fighting for this?

If you want to know why women are not already being drafted, it is because the institutional patriarchy cannot stand to see their daughters come home in body bags (although it's okay for their sons? What?)

Except it's not the 'patriarchy'. I posted an article in the OP by a woman who in her own words said "If equality means sending my daughters to war, I want no part of it" That's WOMEN. NOT men. NOT the patriarchy. WOMEN. Completely contradictory, hypocritical WOMEN. And again, 'institutional patriarchy' could not stand to see women vote either, but women fought for it, and therefore men signed the bill. If women fought for the right to fight in wars, men would sign the bill as well. But they're not, because they're fvcking hypocrites. ALL the benefits and privileges, NONE of the responsibilities. That's what feminism is. It's a welfare movement. GIMME GIMME GIMME.

There are tons of women who are eager to serve - fully serve, that is - in America's war efforts when needed. Those women HAVE been fighting to serve in combat areas for years as the pay is higher, and it's the only way to move up the career ladder long-term.

Then they're not fighting hard enough obviously. if women in the roaring 20's, an objectively more patriarchal era, could get sh!t done then, then why can't they get sh!t done now? Because they're lazy.

So if you want women to be forced to register for the draft then you need to convince all of the fathers in this country that their daughters must fight to defend America's freedoms as much as their sons do. Even so, that fight has *absolutely nothing* to do with voting rights! Cripes. We pay taxes; WE VOTE. The end.

I don't need to do a damn thing. Women are the ones that fought to vote, THEY need to be the ones to fight for the draft. Stop telling me that men have to do everything for you. Women have shown that they can make change happen if they want it. The problem is that women don't want it.

reply

[–] chell-glados 8 years ago

But on the flipside why should a woman sacrifice herself for a country that, essentially, views her as a man's pet?

And, as you've already been told, most women stopped campaigning when war broke out and helped the war effort. Would you have rather the abandon the factories (meaning the men had no weapons/planes etc) so they could campaign to get on the front line?

Do you understand why that makes no sense?

reply

[–] iAmTheOneWhoKnocks 8 years ago

But on the flipside why should a woman sacrifice herself for a country that, essentially, views her as a man's pet?

Then by that same logic, why should they have a say in who runs the country?

And, as you've already been told, most women stopped campaigning when war broke out and helped the war effort. Would you have rather the abandon the factories (meaning the men had no weapons/planes etc) so they could campaign to get on the front line?

Oh right so when men have to sacrifice their lives to protect their country, all of a sudden women have no problems dropping their fight for equality. Makes perfect sense.

Do you understand why that makes no sense?

No. I don't. Why couldn't men stay behind and look after the factories? Why couldn't women sacrifice their lives for a change instead of shipping men off overseas like canon fodder? Are men's lives not worth as much as women's? Women never seem to have a problem with inequality when it benefits them.

Ever wonder why we never seemed to hear much about feminism prior to the industrial revolution? It's like for the last hundred and fifty thousand years, women were fine being kept "as a man's pet", but the moment they were introduced to all of the industry and capitalism and money and fame that came with the new world- which was engineered by men - ALL OF A SUDDEN, men owed women everything. Like I said, freeloaders. Just a welfare movement expecting men to drop what they're doing to give them everything that they never worked for.

reply

[–] chell-glados 8 years ago

You don't have to want to die for your country to have views on the way it's run. That's such a dated view I'm convinced you own a TARDIS and are from the medieval ages.

And yes that does make sense... When war broke out women stopped campaigning for the war effort.

It seems, for you, they couldn't have won. If they stopped campaigning in your, deluded, mind it's because they were scared of being sent to the front line the second they gain equality when in reality it was because of patriotism to their country. If they continued campaigning they would have been selfish *beep* no doubt who put their own selfish desires before the country.

Seriously what should they have done, back then, in your view? What would have been the correct thing to do when war broke out to please you?

Because most women were uneducated and didn't realise they could campaign for equal rights. It's not that amazing how many feats men accomplished over the centuries vs women when they were educated and most women weren't.

You might want to direct that anger for men being sent to fight at the UK government back then. It's ridiculous to attack women for that.

And, honestly, this "debate" is ridiculous. You clearly are a woman hating man who will never listen to other sides because of your deluded idea that women back then just want everything on a plater. They didn't. They just wanted the same rights as those with a penis got.

reply

[–] iAmTheOneWhoKnocks 8 years ago

You don't have to want to die for your country to have views on the way it's run. That's such a dated view I'm convinced you own a TARDIS and are from the medieval ages.

No one's saying you're not entitled to views, just that if you want to see them in practice, yes, you should be willing to die for your country. Your 'views' do not entitle you to free voting rights without paying a cost. EVERYTONE who votes, should be willing to die for their country. There's no reason at all, why your country should protect you if you aren't willing to protect your country. Men were willing, women were not.

And yes that does make sense... When war broke out women stopped campaigning for the war effort.

Right, and quickly re-assumed their docile, submissive, do everything men tell us disposition. They're fine with being 'men's pets' when the alternative is death.

It seems, for you, they couldn't have won. If they stopped campaigning in your, deluded, mind it's because they were scared of being sent to the front line the second they gain equality when in reality it was because of patriotism to their country. If they continued campaigning they would have been selfish *beep* no doubt who put their own selfish desires before the country.

On the contrary, if women continued to campaign for the right for fight for the country, THAT would have been FAR more patriotic than simply relapsing into a housewife. And why is being a housewife during war, seen as patriotic, but not when there is peace? You contradict yourself. So being a slave is empowering for the sake of your country only in a time of war?

Seriously what should they have done, back then, in your view? What would have been the correct thing to do when war broke out to please you?

I've said it several times throughout this thread. Demand that they alleviate the death and bloodshed men were facing and campaign to have women shipped off to war in their stead. Give men a break and let them work in the factories for a change. How can women demand equal respect if they aren't willing to die equally?

Because most women were uneducated and didn't realise they could campaign for equal rights. It's not that amazing how many feats men accomplished over the centuries vs women when they were educated and most women weren't.

Then if everything men did throughout history is thanks to their education, why do we still not see anywhere near as many women changing the world as we do men? Why wasn't it a woman that panted a robot on a moving comet 300 million miles away? Why wasn't it a woman that built the hadron collider? Why aren't women engineering the next best smartphones? VR? Why are the best fashion designers for WOMEN'S CLOTHING, men?

Women outperform men 6:4 in colleges now. They no longer have any excuses. The only answer is they're lazy. They still cling to the 'patriarchal gender roles men bestowed upon them'. They still want to go into nursing. They still want to go into accounting. Psychology. Teaching. Social science. ect. That's not not because of men, that's because of women.

And many men were uneducated during war as well. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out how to take order from your commanding officer and shoot the enemy. Even women could have done that. But they didn't. Fighting for their country was not a priority among women, getting the freebies without any of the work was.

You might want to direct that anger for men being sent to fight at the UK government back then. It's ridiculous to attack women for that.

Why? Women changed the government's mind when it came to voting. They sure as hell could have done the same for shipping themselves off to war.

And, honestly, this "debate" is ridiculous. You clearly are a woman hating man who will never listen to other sides because of your deluded idea that women back then just want everything on a plater. They didn't. They just wanted the same rights as those with a penis got.

But they weren't willing to die for them. Men were. Of course they 'just wanted'. That's the entire basis of feminism. It's just a want movement. They want this and they want that but they aren't willing to work for it.

Women 'fighting for their rights' meant bitching on the streets. Men 'fighting for their rights' meant sacrificing their lives. That's the difference.

Women have sacrificed nothing to get what they wanted. Men are the ones who bore the brunt of bloodshed and abuse throughout history. And they did it without ever once bitching about how they weren't given the ability to stay at home and cook dinner and do the laundry. They bucked up, kept their mouths shut, and did what needed to be done.

Women didn't. Having so much free time in their lives they had nothing else to do except to ponder about how bad they had it at home. Talk about privilege.

reply

[–] chell-glados 8 years ago

I... I almost have no more words.

Except one thing because, like my boyfriend said, you can't fix stupid sometimes.

Women did NOT go back to being docile housewives during the war. As many people have told you (enough to make me think you're either trolling or have the attention span of a gnat) women went to work while men went to war. Without women to work the factories the men in war would have died without the guns/planes/bombs the women made.

And that's my last message on the matter. You are, genuinely, too stipid/trolling to properly debate with because you just scream the same things over and over again.

reply

[–] iAmTheOneWhoKnocks 8 years ago

Women did NOT go back to being docile housewives during the war. As many people have told you (enough to make me think you're either trolling or have the attention span of a gnat) women went to work while men went to war. Without women to work the factories the men in war would have died without the guns/planes/bombs the women made.

Except, as I've pointed out more than several times already, men could have been the ones working the factories while women shipped themselves off to war. But they didn't. They were very happy to give up the argument of equality when men were the ones dying. Not a single woman fought to alleviate the burden of male death overseas. They were hypocrites that wanted equal treatment unless it meant violence.

And that's my last message on the matter. You are, genuinely, too stipid/trolling to properly debate with because you just scream the same things over and over again.

Well what else do you expect me to say when you argue the same points I've already refuted over and over again? But please, go run. It's what you do best.

reply

[–] parkerzielinski 8 years ago

Wow. I am the one who knocks didn't get enough t milk as a baby? Willing to be drafted or willing to give your life for country is not synonymous with the right to vote. American males do sign up for selective service at 18. The u.s. at least was founded in part due to a link between taxiation and voting representation. I would die for my country but I would not be willing to be drafted for Vietnam or another Iraq. Those are both considered bad wars and mistakes. Even the rupub party is distancing themselves from the Iraq war decision of Bush administration. Your idea and whole philosophy is outdated and wrong. I do agree that woman or men need to take responsibality along with privileges. But the draft and voting aren't not synonymous except in your head. And nobody will agree with you if you sound like such an ahole. Your opposition in this debate came off much better and frankly smarter.

reply

[–] iAmTheOneWhoKnocks 8 years ago

Wow. I am the one who knocks didn't get enough t milk as a baby? Willing to be drafted or willing to give your life for country is not synonymous with the right to vote.

Not anymore, but it was back when it mattered. Women fought for the right to vote in a time when voting meant sacrificing your life for your country. And once again I'm having to repeat myself. Women fought for the right to vote, but not for the right to sacrifice their lives.

American males do sign up for selective service at 18. The u.s. at least was founded in part due to a link between taxiation and voting representation.

Yes, in a time when men were the ones paying the most taxes because they were primarily the ones working. Voting represented those men quite fairly.

I would die for my country but I would not be willing to be drafted for Vietnam or another Iraq. Those are both considered bad wars and mistakes.

Unfortunately for you, getting drafted isn't a negotiation. You don't get to pick and choose which wars you feel like fighting. That's not how the military works.

Even the rupub party is distancing themselves from the Iraq war decision of Bush administration.

I'm not disputing whether Iraq was a mistake. It quite clearly was. I remember thinking so when I was in 7th grade and couldn't correlate the connection between Bin Laden, who was an Afghan, and Iraq. That doesn't mean that you aren't obligated to fight the war though. You do as you're told. If every soldier could think for themself on a whim like you;re suggesting, we wouldn't have a military.

Your idea and whole philosophy is outdated and wrong.

Show me how.

I do agree that woman or men need to take responsibality along with privileges. But the draft and voting aren't not synonymous except in your head.

I'm sorry you don't like facts but history suggests otherwise. As much as it may be inconvenient for you to accept.

And nobody will agree with you if you sound like such an ahole. Your opposition in this debate came off much better and frankly smarter.

That doesn't mean they are though. Facts don't discriminate according to tone of voice.

reply

[–] Angry_Dukat 8 years ago

Women outperform men 6:4 in colleges now. They no longer have any excuses. The only answer is they're lazy. They still cling to the 'patriarchal gender roles men bestowed upon them.' They still want to go into nursing. They still want to go into accounting. Psychology. Teaching. Social science. etc. That's not because of men, that's because of women.

This. A million times. As I've said before, it's almost as if gender roles are biologically inherent, not a "social construct" as Feminists keep telling us. Consider this: STEM fields are currently showing a 2-to-1 preference for female applicants over male ones, and yet women STILL aren't flocking to these fields in droves.

Why wasn't it a woman that panted a robot on a moving comet 300 million miles away?

They were too busy complaining about what he was wearing and why such shirts discourage women from entering the STEM fields.

"'Islamophobia'-a word created by Fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons."-Chris Hitchens

reply

[–] iAmTheOneWhoKnocks 8 years ago

This. A million times. As I've said before, it's almost as if gender roles are biologically inherent, not a "social construct" as Feminists keep telling us. Consider this: STEM fields are currently showing a 2-to-1 preference for female applicants over male ones, and yet women STILL aren't flocking to these fields in droves.

They are biologically inherent. I can't understand how women can look at history and assume that this was over some patriarchal agenda to 'keep women oppressed' when we see the exact same gender roles shared throughout the world in a time when the native Americans had no contact with the Chinese, who had no contact with the Greeks, who had no contact with the Vikings, who had no contact with the Britons.

Throughout the world, men and women have assumed the same gender roles while being completely divided from one another. How can that possibly happen if this was taught behavior?

Do they think that all men throughout history just sat around a round table together propping their feet up on the backs of women while sipping fine wines and waxing their handlebar mustaches laughing hysterically into the night?

They are so clueless as to realize that power came from money and wealth, a sentiment that still rings just as true today. Gender had nothing to do with it. MOST men throughout history suffered under the same boot heel that women did. MOST men starved as peasant farmers trying to make ends meet selling chickens and spices. Are we to expect THAT to be male privilege?

And what does that say for the queens and mistresses like Marie Antoinette who was so privileged and treated as royalty that she had nothing else to do in her life except stuff her face with cake while peasants starved around her and while her husband was busy organizing war? Are we expected to believe that SHE was just as oppressed as the men starving to death while working 12 hours a day in the scorching heat?

Where did all of this horsesh!t come from?

They were too busy complaining about what he was wearing and why such shirts discourage women from entering the STEM fields.

 That's right I forgot. These women are so strong and independent that they cant even handle a fvcking t-shirt on a man without a bunch of triggers going off in their head. And these women are supposed to be given the reigns to secure a future for the human race? When you can't even apply for a job because you're too scared of men making comments at your expense, you don't belong in the field. You're not strong, you're not independent. On the contrary, you are ENTIRELY dependent on men to make life easy for you. This is feminism.

reply

[–] Angry_Dukat 8 years ago

Just look at Norway and Sweden, the most liberal societies. Even there, women predominantly work the jobs they've always worked traditionally. And these are the societies they keep telling us are the happiest, whereas American women have become increasingly unhappy every decade since the 1970s. Studies show this.

Feminists will point to the exceptions as proof that gender is just a social construct, but fail to realize they are only exceptions.

"'Islamophobia'-a word created by Fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons."-Chris Hitchens

reply

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 8 years ago

I guess you don't know about the secret society of egomaniac males who refuse to let women be free and happy to do anything they want. I've known about it all my life. I'm a privileged straight white male. Even those male peasants were secretly confiding in each other to their wives loyal, straight and enslaved. All those Chinese men are killing their females for just this reason. It has nothing to do with the fact that females grow up and seem to have no biological consideration for their elderly parents and grandparents. It's evil maleness.

Get off your soapbox while I play you a tune on the tiniest violin.

reply

[–] activista 7 years ago

@iamtheonewhoknocks

Just admit you're a young, silly teenage boy who dosen't know what the hell you're talking about---they might explain your complete and total ignorance of anything you just said. Like this here.

When you can't even apply for a job because you're too scared of men making comments at your expense, you don't belong in the field. You're not strong, you're not independent. On the contrary, you are ENTIRELY dependent on men to make life easy for you. This is feminism.

What the fck are you talking about? Dude, just admit you don't know jack about feminism, because that has got to be the dumbest, most ignorant s*** I've ever heard anybody say about feminism. What women are you talking about? Where are you even living where this is even the case? Once again, you sound stupid as hell talking this s***. You obviously don't know jack about the real lives of real women who work and they have to put up with in certain jobs just because they're women. Just STFU, please. You sound more like an idiot the more bull**** you pop out.

@rascal67

NO, male and female roles are not entirely "biologically inherent". Male and female roles have always been influenced and dictated by society just as much or even more than biology.

reply

[–] activista 7 years ago

@iamtheonewhoknocks

Honestly, have you ever bothered to actually read a history book about how women actually lived back then? Obviously you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Why do idiots like you come in claiming that women should never have had rights for some bull**** reason? You're 100 years too late for that, so just STFU. Basically, you make it sound like women aren't worth s***---excuse me, but women have always had to FIGHT for damn near any rights they had---it damn sure wasn't given to them. And feminism is about women's issues, but feminists have also examined men's issues and tried to help them too. It just amazes me in this day and age how there are some people who don't understand feminism, and don't want to, or they just try to twist it around into something it absolutely isn't. Your posts don't make any damn sense because once again, you don't know what the hell you're talking about when it comes to feminism. You obviously can't stand women and you have this bull**** stupid idea about women never having to work hard or do anything heard---what planet are you living where any of this bull**** you just spouted is true? Because it dosen't exist,that's why. Quit making dumb s*** up to justify your dismisal of women, you freak.

reply

[–] all4sunni 8 years ago

<<<<A woman's money was hers to do with as she pleased, while a man's paycheck was used to provide for the house, bills, and children. He didn't really have anything left over for himself. His money was the family's money while his wife's money was her.>>>>

If you watched the film you would see that a woman's money was not hers to do with as she pleased. Women had no legal standing, could not own property, could not sign contracts, and had no control over their own earnings. In the film Maud Watts gives her pay to her husband. He keeps it in a box that he controls. The character played by Romola Garai wants to use her money to pay six women's bail after she is arrested with them, but her husband doesn't allow her to, so the women stay in jail. Did you watch the film?

You seem to be arguing both sides; that a woman could do what she wanted with her money, and that men were right to control the money women earned and the children. Those are contradictory. IF the women had the right and the ability to control their own money, then the men wouldn't have been able to control it, right or wrong. How would you feel asking your spouse for money that you had earned?

As for the children, Mr Watts gives the child George up for adoption once he's kicked Maud out of the house. He doesn't care for his own child as "breadwinner." He decides he can't do it without Maude, so he gives the child up.

reply

[–] iAmTheOneWhoKnocks 8 years ago

Your problem is that you can't seem to separate the film from reality. I'm not talking about the movie here. The film recites the same feminist horsesh!t that has been shoved down academia and the media for the past 5 decades. Men = oppressor, women = oppressed. History is not how it is defined in the film.

reply

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 8 years ago

Asking your partner for money just to keep a roof over her child's head is a bad thing?? WTF??

That's typical though. Female rights are more important to you people than the health and happiness of a child, especially a boy.

Get off your soapbox while I play you a tune on the tiniest violin.

reply

[–] Angry_Dukat 8 years ago

Because Feminism has always been about getting the privilege without the responsibility

"'Islamophobia'-a word created by Fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons."-Chris Hitchens

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AngelRedhead 8 years ago

Ok! But can you pop a human being out of your bottom? No! Because you are a man! Men can do things & women give life otherwise you would not exist!

I cannot live without my life! I cannot live without my soul....... Heathcliff, Wuthering Heights

reply

[–] iAmTheOneWhoKnocks 8 years ago

But men impregnate women. So really, life would not exist if men didn't exist to impregnate women either. The entire fabric of the gift women give to the world (birth) rests on the man's ability to plant the seed. It's a wash.

reply

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 8 years ago

That's what feminists keeping forgetting. Men are half of the equation to human life on this planet. Hell, male mammals in general are half the equation. We are just as equally valuable... and yet, given how much feminists fight for men - for their sons, brothers, fathers, etc to stay out of war or to be treated fairly in divorce hearings, it's hard not to believe that we're not completely disposable to them.

Get off your soapbox while I play you a tune on the tiniest violin.

reply

[–] Howlin Wolf 8 years ago

There will have been some women who DID want to fight, if they were able...

Other than that... Good sense?! Just because you fight to correct ONE injustice, doesn't mean you have to rail against all of them.



"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

reply

[–] iAmTheOneWhoKnocks 8 years ago

There will have been some women who DID want to fight, if they were able...

But they weren't, and instead of fighting for the right to fight, they were perfectly happy to let it slide underneath the rug without a fuss. That's the point. Again, women weren't able to vote OR fight in war, but instead of protesting for both, they only protested for one.

Other than that... Good sense?! Just because you fight to correct ONE injustice, doesn't mean you have to rail against all of them.

Why not? The 'injustice' of keeping women from voting, was directly correlated to the draft. The moment women earned the right to vote is the moment every one of them should have been forced into draft registration. You can't have one without the other. Why are men expected to die for their country to earn their voting rights but women aren't? What business did the suffragettes have protesting for their right to vote while ignoring their obligation to their country? Again, it's complete hypocrisy.

reply

[–] rnmboon 8 years ago

It is your personal opinion that the right to vote should be combined with the draft. This is not and hasn't been a valid concept in any western country for the past few centuries. And it certainly wasn't a serious concept in Britain in the first half of the previous century. The events of WW1 did play a part in the opening up of voting rights but not in the sense of "rewarding" anyone.

And these days it certainly shouldn't be an argument in any discussion. The right to vote isn't a "reward" for service or anything else: it is a right. You don't earn it, you have it. The suffragettes where right in fighting for that right.

reply

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 7 years ago

Keep making excuses for women to keep receiving unearned entitlements in society. You don't want to have to work for anything. Earning is a patriarchal concept right? Same as the concepts of duty and responsibility... even though they are far more admirable than running away and then whining about not being able to run away like cowards. Those patriarchal concepts kept the Germans from taking over the world, not just once - but twice. Those patriarchal concepts have kept vicious animals from ripping innocent women and children into steak dinners since the dawn of man.

And I love how you feminists keep conveniently flipping everything men do to be an attack on women. Millions of boys die in WW2. Guess what, boys? Your sacrifice don't mean anything because women didn't have the "PRIVILEGE" of joining you in dying painfully, messily and miserably on that battlefield. LOL. Yeah. Dying painfully with your intestines exposed to flying shrapnel is such a joy and privilege. LOL. Forget what those boys wanted. I can guaran-fcking-tee you all that none of those boys wanted to see their wives, girlfriends or mothers exposed to that hell.

Get off your soapbox while I play you a tune on the tiniest violin.

reply

[–] PacificHeights 7 years ago

The right to vote isn't a "reward" for service or anything else: it is a right. You don't earn it, you have it. The suffragettes where right in fighting for that right.

Interesting reframing of history. All the men throughout history who didn't own property forgot about their "right" to vote.

reply

[–] delalluvia 7 years ago

Interesting reframing of history. All the men throughout history who didn't own property forgot about their "right" to vote.

It was given to them so they could be cannon fodder for wars. Otherwise, like the women in this movie, 'why should I obey laws that I had no say in?"

"Can you keep a secret? Can you know something and never speak of it again?"

reply