Page 19 of 20 [ 308 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20  Next

Alliekit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Mar 2016
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,182
Location: England

11 Jan 2017, 6:36 am

RetroGamer87 wrote:
Alliekit wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
The claim of female oppression in Victorian Britain is disingenuous, revisionist and completely absent any understanding of the historical progression from serfdom to emancipation of all members the lower classes.

To look at human history absent the understanding of our roots as a sexually dimorphic social mammal is equally flawed.

Hardly any women in Universities. All property was in the hand of husbands whom could largely freely abuse and rape their wives. Where is equality in that. What's more or less it wasn't those at the top being the oppressors it was the working class in many ways.


Perfect example of why you should study history rather than feminism.


Maybe you should because what was described was the history. Lets not forget women only got to vote because of their contribution to the war effort.


Maybe in your country. Here in South Australia women got the vote in 1895, well before World War I (South Australian women also gained the right to stand for parliament in 1895).


yes I was talking about in england. Sorry if there was any confusion.

Australia was ahead of the curve in that respect



Alliekit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Mar 2016
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,182
Location: England

11 Jan 2017, 6:43 am

adifferentname wrote:
Tollorin wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
The claim of female oppression in Victorian Britain is disingenuous, revisionist and completely absent any understanding of the historical progression from serfdom to emancipation of all members the lower classes.

To look at human history absent the understanding of our roots as a sexually dimorphic social mammal is equally flawed.

Hardly any women in Universities. All property was in the hand of husbands whom could largely freely abuse and rape their wives. Where is equality in that. What's more or less it wasn't those at the top being the oppressors it was the working class in many ways.


Perfect example of why you should study history rather than feminism.

What are you talking about? There were very few women in university one century ago, far less that men; women were discouraged from pursuing instruction and professions and those who did had to go through many barriers.


Interesting that you've decided that it's the women in universities part I was commenting on. Also interesting that you missed the point of why I selectively quoted myself prior to the response.

FYI England had only two universities at the start of Victoria's reign, access to which was controlled by the Church of England.

Quote:
This is history, not something invented by feminist study or whatever.


This is history sans nuance. History through an ideological lens. Its goal is justification of BS today by wearing a coat sewn together from the supposed outrages of yesteryear. Reintroduce the nuance and context and you appreciate how progressive the Victorians were, despite their ideals of what we consider "traditional domestic values".

Rather than bemoaning how few women got to vote or go to university, we should express gratitude to those who built the foundations of universal suffrage for men and women alike, who gave women the right to vote and built additional universities (some of which accepted women applicants), schools, hospitals, etc and services for the lower classes who had previously been ignored.

Quote:
I guess that now the alt-right is taking control of political powers history is rewritten; denying of historical sexism and racism, and I guess that soon slavery will be said to not "have been that bad".


Have you considered applying for a job with Infowars?


It was a shame it took until 1918 for women to be able to vote in parliament and finnally have equal rights to men.

While the victorian era may have been progressive women were still placed in certain 'traditional roles' that made it so that academic work was frowned upon as well as interferring with politics to a degree



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,932
Location: Adelaide, Australia

11 Jan 2017, 6:53 am

Alliekit wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Alliekit wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
The claim of female oppression in Victorian Britain is disingenuous, revisionist and completely absent any understanding of the historical progression from serfdom to emancipation of all members the lower classes.

To look at human history absent the understanding of our roots as a sexually dimorphic social mammal is equally flawed.

Hardly any women in Universities. All property was in the hand of husbands whom could largely freely abuse and rape their wives. Where is equality in that. What's more or less it wasn't those at the top being the oppressors it was the working class in many ways.


Perfect example of why you should study history rather than feminism.


Maybe you should because what was described was the history. Lets not forget women only got to vote because of their contribution to the war effort.


Maybe in your country. Here in South Australia women got the vote in 1895, well before World War I (South Australian women also gained the right to stand for parliament in 1895).


yes I was talking about in england. Sorry if there was any confusion.

Australia was ahead of the curve in that respect


No worries. If it's any consolation you beat the USA by two years.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,873
Location: temperate zone

11 Jan 2017, 6:58 am

.....he just plays one on TV!



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

11 Jan 2017, 7:37 am

Alliekit wrote:
It was a shame it took until 1918 for women to be able to vote in parliament and finnally have equal rights to men.


That's not accurate. Women who paid tax gained the right to vote in 1869. The Representation of the People Act of 1918 saw the government, largely influenced by the sacrifices of World War I, extend voting rights to all men aged 21 and over and to women over 30 (subject to similar property limitations that previously applied to men) which effectively tripled the electorate (6 million additional men and 8 million women). The Equal Franchise Act, giving all women over 21 the same voting rights as men, occurred 10 years later in 1928 and increased the electorate by around 5 million.

I'm not sure why you consider it a "shame". The gradual rolling out of rights to men and women in the pursuit of equality mark, in my opinion, one of the finest achievements of Western civilisation. Societies are works in progress. We can no more judge Victorians (or any other of our forebears) by today's standards than they could those who came before them. After all, they're largely responsible for the freedoms and privileges we enjoy today.

Quote:
While the victorian era may have been progressive women were still placed in certain 'traditional roles' that made it so that academic work was frowned upon as well as interferring with politics to a degree


All of which has already been pointed out in this thread.



Alliekit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Mar 2016
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,182
Location: England

11 Jan 2017, 11:53 am

adifferentname wrote:
Alliekit wrote:
It was a shame it took until 1918 for women to be able to vote in parliament and finnally have equal rights to men.


That's not accurate. Women who paid tax gained the right to vote in 1869. The Representation of the People Act of 1918 saw the government, largely influenced by the sacrifices of World War I, extend voting rights to all men aged 21 and over and to women over 30 (subject to similar property limitations that previously applied to men) which effectively tripled the electorate (6 million additional men and 8 million women). The Equal Franchise Act, giving all women over 21 the same voting rights as men, occurred 10 years later in 1928 and increased the electorate by around 5 million.

I'm not sure why you consider it a "shame". The gradual rolling out of rights to men and women in the pursuit of equality mark, in my opinion, one of the finest achievements of Western civilisation. Societies are works in progress. We can no more judge Victorians (or any other of our forebears) by today's standards than they could those who came before them. After all, they're largely responsible for the freedoms and privileges we enjoy today.

Quote:
While the victorian era may have been progressive women were still placed in certain 'traditional roles' that made it so that academic work was frowned upon as well as interferring with politics to a degree


All of which has already been pointed out in this thread.


http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-h ... womenvote/

Sorry It just said on the parliament website no women voted in the elections til 1918 while men could



feral botanist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jul 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 881
Location: in the dry land

11 Jan 2017, 3:53 pm

adifferentname wrote:

There's a great deal of projecting and reading between the lines on this board, from people I am certain find the same behaviour abhorrent when practised by others.



I could not agree with you more. :lol:



JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

13 Jan 2017, 3:28 pm

feral botanist wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
Mikah wrote:
All this talk about averages and statistics yet people forget that Eastern Asians and Jews regularly top those tables, far outperforming whites. Yet no talk (at least not from the Left) about Asian Privilege and Jew Privilege. Perhaps, dear virtue-signaling progs, your cross hairs need realignment, or (just between you and me) admit your true motivations.



Asian privilege, is this all Asians? Do people of Philippino heritage have the same privilege as Korean heritage?

How about people of the Hmong heritage, do they have the same privilege as people of Japanese heritage?

I am not even going to touch "Jew privilege", whatever that is.

How do you mean ""out performing whites"? In bed? In the Olympics? At poker? That is a vague statement. Please lay out the specifics.


"I am not even going to touch "Jew privilege", whatever that is."

Why? Can't criticise people with lots of power I guess. Jews are the most privileged ethnic group in the US and 3 of the 4 most richest countries in the world are Asian/Arab, yet all we get poured into us is the myth of 'white privilege'.


First we are talking inside the US.

But, do all white people have power?


Next, the US has 41% of the worlds wealth. Those other three nations you mentioned are not even close.
http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/america-w ... nequality/

Why do you guys always try to hang your arguments on these misleading absolute numbers.


Right and I was talking about inside the US regarding most privileged, but can't say anymore about it as I don't want to get in trouble.

The US as a whole doesn't, just very rich banks and corporations etc. The three I mentioned are the richest countries in the world. The US is around $20 trillion in debt.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"