Is feminism really dying?
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
I only hope to see the radical brand of feminism dying. Radical and
militant feminists are out-of-shape and/or from unattractive to
butt-ugly. But that is not the problem as I can avoid them. Their
problem to me is they want to ban prostitution because
men would rather rather pay good money to have sex with
desirable women than getting it free from them.
militant feminists are out-of-shape and/or from unattractive to
butt-ugly. But that is not the problem as I can avoid them. Their
problem to me is they want to ban prostitution because
men would rather rather pay good money to have sex with
desirable women than getting it free from them.
There behavior and attitudes about men are pure misandry. Which makes them no better than the misogynists that they abhor.
Unless we are heading back to a world where women don't work and can't vote, no, feminism is not dying. Women are a real power in the workplace and a real power in politics, and that power well only increase as university graduates are increasingly female.
voting was only restricted to rich property owners. most men and women could not vote before world war one
Professor Janice Fiamengo from the University of Ottawa discusses how feminists have re-written history to exclude Male Suffrage from the public consciousness to such a degree that most people believe that all men always had the right to vote. Even university students and professors believe that men withheld womens' voting rights for thousands of years.
Professor Janice Fiamengo from the University of Ottawa discusses how feminists have re-written history to exclude Male Suffrage from the public consciousness to such a degree that most people believe that all men always had the right to vote. Even university students and professors believe that men withheld womens' voting rights for thousands of years.
Why weren't rich women allowed to vote?
And there was an entire century between when property qualifications were dropped and when women gained the right to vote. Why weren't women allowed to vote?
Are you somehow trying to argue it wasn't blatant sexism?
And there was an entire century between when property qualifications were dropped and when women gained the right to vote. Why weren't women allowed to vote?
Are you somehow trying to argue it wasn't blatant sexism?
no it was not blatant sexism. before 1900 most men and most women did not have the right to vote. voting qualifications were based on income and property ownership
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thin...s-everyone-forgotten-about-male-suffrage.html
Yes it was blatant sexism. First, women who had the required income and property were denied the vote. Second, women were prevented from working. Third, even when the property restriction was lifted women were still denied the vote for another century.
You really are fucked up about this issue.
the video and the article all disprove your claims it's obvious you did not look at them
Then the videos are wrong.
Women did not have the right to vote in the 1800's, not even if they owned property and were wealthy. They were simply discriminated against.
When States eliminated the poll taxes and property taxes they did NOT enfranchise women. Women continued to be denied the right to vote even after those restrictions were removed.
That is a historical fact whether or not you like it. Women were subject to extreme discrimination until the 19th century and had nothing resembling equality until last fifty years.
You have some issues, actually some hatred, that are YOUR issues, things YOU need to work out. You have taken your bigotry against women to ludicrous extremes (all of them, not just whatever you think a feminist is).
the only people that cry bigotry against women here are white liberal predominantly male feminists like you while refusing to confront islamic misogyy that actually printing books advocating voilence against women and giving them away to the public and on university campuses like York U. no woman here expect one feminist here never complain about my posts.
your feminist comrade Ghomeshi is on trial today for sexual assault. male feminists are known to use feminism to lure women for their sexual gratification
http://tsecnetwork.ca/2015/10/04/a-tale-of-the-handmaidens-violence-against-women-in-canada/
Here in Canada, Islamicist extremists regularly and openly advocate violence against women.
Charge of Misogyny (Code Black)
Discussion: The target is accused of displaying some form of unwarranted malice to a particular woman or to women in general. Examples:
“You misogynist creep!”
“Why do you hate women?”
“Do you love your mother?”
“You are insensitive to the plight of women.”
“You are mean-spirited.”
“You view women as doormats.”
“You want to roll back the rights of women!!”
“You are going to make me cry.”
Response: One may ask the accuser how does a pro-male agenda become inherently anti-female (especially since feminists often claim that gains for men and women are “not a zero-sum game”). One may also ask the accuser how do they account for women who agree with the target’s viewpoints. The Code Black shaming tactic often integrates the logical fallacies of “argumentum ad misericordiam” (viz., argumentation based on pity for women) and/or“argumentum in terrorem” (viz., arousing fear about what the target wants to do to women).
Did you watch the Fiamengo video? It looks like her facts and timeline were fairly presented. Do you dispute her facts?
She does not claim that voting rights for women (subject to whatever the relevant restriction was at the time) were extended at the exact same time as men. Specifically, she posts a timeline that states that women meeting property ownership criteria were permitted to vote starting in 1900. Clearly, similar rights had already been extended to some men prior to 1900 (20% in 1832, and then, gradually, up to just shy of 50% by 1914, as the property ownership restrictions were weakened over time). In 1918 years voting rights were extended to both men and women (largely) regardless of property.
What does her analysis mean:
a) Most men (in Canada) got the right to vote at the same time that women did - 1918 (both groups had to meet some lingering property restrictions until 1920).
b) Women property owners got the right to vote in 1900. On the same criteria, less than 1/2 of men could vote at that time.
Obviously, on her analysis, expansion of voting rights for male property owners moved forward ahead of voting rights for women. Her point is that the time lag is not that significant when looked at on a larger historical scale. Her secondary point is that this significant context is almost universally omitted in any discussion of the struggle of women to obtain the right to vote.
Her video does not try to reach any further, and does not address whether, aside from voting, men enjoyed other legal/political/social/economic advantages over women prior to these developments (or subsequent).
There's really nothing to take issue with here.
In Canada women were absolutely denied the right to vote in Federal elections from confederation until 1917, at which point a select few women gained the right.
It is absolutely false that women had the right to vote at the Federal level prior to that and it was blatant discrimination.
In other elections at the provincial and municipal level there were a mix of different rules in different parts of the country but women did not vote in Federal elections for the fifty years from 1867 to 1917.
Canada is a young country. In the US which had a longer history of elections it was over a century before women for the right to vote after men did.
It is absolutely false that women had the right to vote at the Federal level prior to that and it was blatant discrimination.
In other elections at the provincial and municipal level there were a mix of different rules in different parts of the country but women did not vote in Federal elections for the fifty years from 1867 to 1917.
Canada is a young country. In the US which had a longer history of elections it was over a century before women for the right to vote after men did.
Isn't your point complicated by the fact that during early Canadian History there was a struggle between the Federal Parliament and the Provinces as to who should control eligibility to vote in Federal elections? According to Elections Canada, the Federal Government first exercised jurisdiction from 1885 (so, at Confederation, the Provinces controlled voter eligibility). However, in 1898, the Provinces resumed control over voting until 1919 (the first elections governed by the 1918 Act). In Ontario, women property owners had voting rights since 1850.
I've looked at few sources to try to clarify whether, following Provincial control of voting in 1898, women were permitted to vote in Federal elections (according to the laws of their respective provinces). Unfortunately, the sites I've looked at have been so unclear on this point to appear intentionally obtuse. Is there a clear (unbiased) reference page out there?
There were brief periods before Confederation that Canadian women is some places had voting rights but for the most part, it was male British subjects over 21 until the end of WWI. The fact that in the early 1900's women in Canada had the right to run for office but not vote for themselves is rather farcical.
Side note: because of the lack of Federal voter registration, non-whites in some jurisdictions were disqualified from voting until around WWII.
p.s. C-M is a real piece of work. Obviously the radical feminists are nuts; that's what makes them radical. C-M is just the opposite side of the same coin, a radical chauvinist.
