Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[palsch]

They may not have been able to vote (the same as most men) but they were important, and, in Britain anyway, they received the vote at the same time as the common man (the 1860's. proven by the fact there were females on the voting register at the time).

Yeah, I'm having trouble accepting that you believe half of what you are writing, so I'm just sticking to the obvious factual errors.

There was one woman who was wrongly on the electoral register in 1867. She voted and that vote was the basis of a court case that found women's suffrage was illegal. Specifically the Great Reform Act of 1832 included the word "male" in the property requirements to vote, excluding women deliberately. I'd note that the British feminist movement was extremely active and fairly successful by this point, so it's not like even the minimal steps they had made were independent of feminist pushes for equality.

It was 1918 that women gained the vote in Britain, and then only over the age of 30. It wasn't till 1928 that women gained parity with men on voting rights.

They are payed the same, at least at the start. I will pay anyone 1000 great british pounds if they can find a job advertisement that has one wage for a female and another for a male. The difference in pay is due to the proven fact that men chase pay rises more aggressively than women, and thus receive them more often.

How many jobs have you applied for? Most advertise pay ranges rather than a fixed salary. It turns out that women end up at the bottom of the range more often than men.

And yes, there are aggression gaps, usually down to socialisation. Women are encouraged to be less assertive and aggressive in general, and when they do push they tend to be judged harshly for it. A woman pushing to be at the top of the pay range is less likely to get the job than a man making the same push, all other things being equal.

[kahn1234]

The fact about the women being able to vote at the same time as men in Britain is simply not true, women were not give the vote until 1918 after the first world war and even then their minimum voting age was higher than the men's one.

not according to the voting registers.

perhaps do some research first. It was reported on in the news at the time, albeit not much (doesnt go along with the current agenda/consensus).

They may not have been able to vote (the same as most men) but they were important, and, in Britain anyway, they received the vote at the same time as the common man (the 1860's. proven by the fact there were females on the voting register at the time).

Yeah, I'm having trouble accepting that you believe half of what you are writing, so I'm just sticking to the obvious factual errors.

There was one woman who was wrongly on the electoral register in 1867. She voted and that vote was the basis of a court case that found women's suffrage was illegal. Specifically the Great Reform Act of 1832 included the word "male" in the property requirements to vote, excluding women deliberately. I'd note that the British feminist movement was extremely active and fairly successful by this point, so it's not like even the minimal steps they had made were independent of feminist pushes for equality.

It was 1918 that women gained the vote in Britain, and then only over the age of 30. It wasn't till 1928 that women gained parity with men on voting rights.

One Woman? there were at least two dozen women on the register who voted in the local elections in one area. i cant find the article that displays them at the moment, but it was reported on.

From the International Woman Suffrage Timeline.

[palsch]

not according to the voting registers.

perhaps do some research first. It was reported on in the news at the time, albeit not much (doesnt go along with the current agenda/consensus).

Yes, Lily Maxwell. She slipped through an accidental loophole and her vote was disallowed.

[Kansa]

The one women I found that actually was included on the voting registers was done by a mistake and if the vote was given to women at that time why would the suffrage movement make it one of their main campaigning points

[Max White]

~Snip

Well I think we are in agreement.


The fact of the matter is that the way woman are treated in the media, including games should be a concern for mens rights too. The fact that men are treated like primitives who only think with their penis and only want woman as sexual objects is offensive. Of course this isn't the only reason that woman deserve fair treatment, far from it, it is just showing why this is a human issue, rather than one that only affects woman.

[kahn1234]

From the International Woman Suffrage Timeline.

1869: Britain grants unmarried women who are householders the right to vote in local elections.

1881: Some Scottish women get the right to vote in local elections.

1894: The United Kingdom expands women's voting rights to married women in local but not national elections.

[Kansa]

Yes that is still only in local elections though, men were allowed to vote in national elections while women were not and that still shows discrimination against them

[palsch]

They may not have been able to vote (the same as most men) but they were important, and, in Britain anyway, they received the vote at the same time as the common man (the 1860's. proven by the fact there were females on the voting register at the time).

One Woman? there were at least two dozen women on the register who voted in the local elections in one area. i cant find the article that displays them at the moment, but it was reported on.

OK, so you admit that you were wrong when you claimed that, "in Britain anyway, they received the vote at the same time as the common man"?

Because making the argument that women have always been equal to men and then getting basic facts about suffrage wrong isn't really helping your case. The fact that the feminist movement was successful in getting women the vote in some local areas (and note that by 1867 John Stewart Mill was pushing for the full female vote in Parliament and losing the vote, so it's not like it wasn't on the radar) isn't really helping your case either.

[kahn1234]

Yes that is still only in local elections though, men were allowed to vote in national elections while women were not and that still shows discrimination against them

Rich men. landowners. the common man didnt equal vote to rich men until the later 1800's in general elections. Female votes int he general elections followed in 1918, as has been said previosuly.

the Common man at the time was just as deprived of political power as the common woman. Ever heard of weighted universal voting? the rich get more/'stronger' votes than the poor.

Rich women were usually valued advisers to their rich, voting husbands so they did get a voice, in a way.

[Max White]

Except the very notion that the only voice a woman should get is through her husband is kind of an issue, don't you think?

[kahn1234]

Except the very notion that the only voice a woman should get is through her husband is kind of an issue, don't you think?

i never said it was the only voice they should have. I said they did as least get SOME voice, unlike most men (who were drowned out by the 'stronger' votes of the rich men) and pretty much all women at the time in general elections.

And just so its clear, women having the vote is fine by me. I just dont like the way everyone thinks voting was/is some big be-all-end-all matter. There are many other things that effect men and many other things that effect women that are more important.

I dont like hyperbole, or cherry picked/manipulated 'facts' and quotes (both of which the Fawcett society and other feminist groups are guilty of).

[penguinofhonor]

things

I see. You make strawman arguments because you are one.

[Zangi]

Yes that is still only in local elections though, men were allowed to vote in national elections while women were not and that still shows discrimination against them

Rich men. landowners. the common man didnt equal vote to rich men until the later 1800's in general elections. Female votes int he general elections followed in 1918, as has been said previosuly.

the Common man at the time was just as deprived of political power as the common woman. Rich women were usually valued advisers to their rich, voting husbands so they did get a voice, in a way.

*Shakes head*  I don't see how your example says it any different.

Gender inequality is not a modern phenomenon that just came out of nowhere. 

Women can be respected and loved, yes.  That does not mean they have a say(or will be listened to) in public affairs.
Like having a dog, you can respect the dog for its loyalty and love it for its companionship, but, in the end you are the one who is going to decide what is ok and what is not ok for the dog to do.

[Max White]

I see. You make strawman arguments because you are one.

Does this mean strawmen reproduce, and I could start a strawmen ranch?
I imagine it would end some what like a zombie apocalypse, what with the 'Desire for brains' thing they have going on.

[penguinofhonor]

I think there's some sort of horror movie about that.