The Most Beautiful Piece Of Music Ever...
Music1 min ago
Women Against Women's Suffrage
It is pretty obvious why I'm posting this: I'm attempting, perhaps mistakenly, to draw at least some analogy between the debate then, when women were fighting for decades to gain access to what we now see as one of the most basic rights, the right to vote, and the recent resurgence of Civil Rights and BLM protests.
Whether or not that's justified, the history of anti-Suffrage is interesting on its own sake. Perhaps in a sense it's obvious that this was going to happen, but there is something shocking and disheartening all the same about the reaction to women's suffrage protests, and particularly so when it came from other women. The example below, The Ladies' Battle,
written by Molly Seawell, an American author, is but one of countless others. It's so jarring to read some of the passages today. And yet, are they that out of place in modern discourse?
Here's a passage on the effect of the WSPU (the suffragettes who relied on Civil Disobedience), for example:
"... it would be unjust to confound the section of law-abiding and dignified, if mistaken, suffragists with the shrieking and savage mobs that make one shudder at the thought of entrusting them with a vote... The present Government has shown a singular vacillation concerning the frenzied women who rioted for suffrage." (pp63-65)
Here Seawell relies on the deadliest political insult:
"The tendency of women suffrage is inevitably towards Socialism, the State doing everything possible for the individual." (p 71)
Or insults the intelligence or lack of understanding of those who wanted suffrage:
"Opposition to suffrage does not mean that women should not study public affairs, and take an intelligent interest in them... it would broaden their minds, and there would be fewer suffragists." (ibid, p106).
"It is my earnest hope and belief that the sound good sense of American women will defend them from suffrage, and protect... their personal dignity. I belief women suffrage to be an unmixed evil." (p119).
It would be a shame for such a weighty tome to have missed out another key Civil Rights issue, but Seawell does not disappoint:
"it is within the memory of living men that the Government of the United States... violated every principle of constitutional government, of common sense as well as common justice, by placing the ballot [and the same civil rights] in the hands of recently emancipated slaves... only a few generations removed from cannibalism, as to the highest type of the Caucasian race, with a thousand years of civilisation behind it." (pp17-18)
It would be comforting to thinking that Seawell was a lone voice in the debate, but sadly she was not. The book itself provides many examples that purport to demonstrate, if anything, the reverse, and that suffragism was a minority pursuit. And, besides, history up until then was on her side. In the UK we are still not yet 100 years away from the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928, which finally granted women and men equal rights at the Ballot Box. In the US they will celebrate their 100-year anniversary of equal suffrage in a shade over two months.
It is, I think, timely to recall just how difficult it can be to win battles that hindsight would lead us to wonder why they were even fought at all.
https:/
Whether or not that's justified, the history of anti-Suffrage is interesting on its own sake. Perhaps in a sense it's obvious that this was going to happen, but there is something shocking and disheartening all the same about the reaction to women's suffrage protests, and particularly so when it came from other women. The example below, The Ladies' Battle,
written by Molly Seawell, an American author, is but one of countless others. It's so jarring to read some of the passages today. And yet, are they that out of place in modern discourse?
Here's a passage on the effect of the WSPU (the suffragettes who relied on Civil Disobedience), for example:
"... it would be unjust to confound the section of law-abiding and dignified, if mistaken, suffragists with the shrieking and savage mobs that make one shudder at the thought of entrusting them with a vote... The present Government has shown a singular vacillation concerning the frenzied women who rioted for suffrage." (pp63-65)
Here Seawell relies on the deadliest political insult:
"The tendency of women suffrage is inevitably towards Socialism, the State doing everything possible for the individual." (p 71)
Or insults the intelligence or lack of understanding of those who wanted suffrage:
"Opposition to suffrage does not mean that women should not study public affairs, and take an intelligent interest in them... it would broaden their minds, and there would be fewer suffragists." (ibid, p106).
"It is my earnest hope and belief that the sound good sense of American women will defend them from suffrage, and protect... their personal dignity. I belief women suffrage to be an unmixed evil." (p119).
It would be a shame for such a weighty tome to have missed out another key Civil Rights issue, but Seawell does not disappoint:
"it is within the memory of living men that the Government of the United States... violated every principle of constitutional government, of common sense as well as common justice, by placing the ballot [and the same civil rights] in the hands of recently emancipated slaves... only a few generations removed from cannibalism, as to the highest type of the Caucasian race, with a thousand years of civilisation behind it." (pp17-18)
It would be comforting to thinking that Seawell was a lone voice in the debate, but sadly she was not. The book itself provides many examples that purport to demonstrate, if anything, the reverse, and that suffragism was a minority pursuit. And, besides, history up until then was on her side. In the UK we are still not yet 100 years away from the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928, which finally granted women and men equal rights at the Ballot Box. In the US they will celebrate their 100-year anniversary of equal suffrage in a shade over two months.
It is, I think, timely to recall just how difficult it can be to win battles that hindsight would lead us to wonder why they were even fought at all.
https:/
Answers
They have equal rights by law Naomi, but they are not protected from human prejudice. As soon as someone from BAME origins goes public with instanees of racism, the response from a large part of the white population is to disbelieve them. In fact, a lot of those folk doing the disbelief are quite constant in their lack of belief. BAME complain of racism: Lies....
23:27 Tue 23rd Jun 2020
pixie: //"Also... why should they need to be "extraordinary women" and "overcome prejudice"? // Mathematics is a tough subject, I know, I count myself as ok compared to most, compared to those in the film I'm clueless, that makes them extraordinary as well as overcoming the prejudice of the day, their skin colour is not relevant to me, that's in your head.
//How many times have you done that in your life? // - plenty of times, I was the poor kid with jail bait parents from the rough end of the rough council estate. I was often written off. Didn't stop me.
//How many times have you done that in your life? // - plenty of times, I was the poor kid with jail bait parents from the rough end of the rough council estate. I was often written off. Didn't stop me.
pixie; //Isn't "some racism" too much? I'm sure the British are perfectly capable of improving things. We are better than "well, we aren't the most racist in the world". Surely? // - agreed and we are constantly doing something about it, this whole BLM episode has created racists and sent us back decades. Systematically going through every facet of our lives and hysterically highlighting every slightest deviation from the Liberally prescribed path has had the opposite effect to what I think is intended by that.
Only the racist morons, though, TTT. Those that believe "they" are all same and don't have the humanity to see the underlying issues. We don't hate all muslims, because of a few extremists.
We don't hate all women, because of a few ott feminists.
You can make up your own mind, I'm sure, without seeing everything as a threat to "the white man".
We don't hate all women, because of a few ott feminists.
You can make up your own mind, I'm sure, without seeing everything as a threat to "the white man".
It’s impossible to legislate against thought. Yes, racism does exist - just as anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, misogyny - and an alleged dislike of ginger people exists - but playing the race card which is what has been happening for a long time and is what is happening now - doesn’t remedy it - it exacerbates it. It makes people wary - and for good reason - because when disingenuous methods are employed to achieve any aim it renders the user untrustworthy. I think this whole thing is very likely to backfire to a degree with many employers reluctant to employ black people for fear of any potential difficulties they may create by crying ‘racist’ at every perceived obstacle they may encounter.
Nothing 'exacerbates' racism, naomi... except for those who choose to see it that way. It's an excuse and nothing more.
You must have seen, on AB alone, that if, say, a black lesbian gets a job... there are a lot of general comments of "how many boxes has that ticked"... rather than any belief it was on her own merits. That is not the fault of legislation- we obviously needed that- because even now, the playing field hasn't been equalled. It is the fault of racists, determined to believe they are best at everything, and have been "unfairly treated" if they don't get there own way.
You must have seen, on AB alone, that if, say, a black lesbian gets a job... there are a lot of general comments of "how many boxes has that ticked"... rather than any belief it was on her own merits. That is not the fault of legislation- we obviously needed that- because even now, the playing field hasn't been equalled. It is the fault of racists, determined to believe they are best at everything, and have been "unfairly treated" if they don't get there own way.
//Nothing 'exacerbates' racism//
I disagree. We are currently witnessing an attack on our country and on our history which is, understandably, upsetting a lot of people. Furthermore, T-shirts bearing the slogan ‘All Lives Matter’ are condemned, and when a black lesbian does get the job there’s a distinct possibility that it is because boxes on a specially prepared shortlist intended to satisfy the requirement for diversity have been ticked - and all of that creates resentment - just as it does if preference is skewed in favour of any other group. If we want to tackle the real issues denial solely in one direction isn’t the way to do it. We have to be honest across the board.
I disagree. We are currently witnessing an attack on our country and on our history which is, understandably, upsetting a lot of people. Furthermore, T-shirts bearing the slogan ‘All Lives Matter’ are condemned, and when a black lesbian does get the job there’s a distinct possibility that it is because boxes on a specially prepared shortlist intended to satisfy the requirement for diversity have been ticked - and all of that creates resentment - just as it does if preference is skewed in favour of any other group. If we want to tackle the real issues denial solely in one direction isn’t the way to do it. We have to be honest across the board.
// a distinct possibility//... why? There is a presumption, which isn't the same. Nobody at all will be moved to think that all non-white people are the same- unless they already believe that.
"All lives matter" is too obvious to be worth saying. What do you think the point was?
And controversial or not... we have had many centuries to balance out the non-white, disabled, female opportunities... and all are still under represented. Clearly, leaving it to natural selection doesn't work. As those in charge, haven't changed anything... so it continues.
"All lives matter" is too obvious to be worth saying. What do you think the point was?
And controversial or not... we have had many centuries to balance out the non-white, disabled, female opportunities... and all are still under represented. Clearly, leaving it to natural selection doesn't work. As those in charge, haven't changed anything... so it continues.
// and is what is happening now - doesn’t remedy it - it exacerbates it. It makes people wary //
what dont legislate against child murder because it will only make them murder more children
=sigh-
no not sigh - what complete and utter b;oookz
this has to be AB - ( PP doesnt bother to look at masthead)
Got to p 50 of set text
and read something else ( carnot on thermodynamics and sohocles)
but hey the discussion is the usual high standard for AB !
what dont legislate against child murder because it will only make them murder more children
=sigh-
no not sigh - what complete and utter b;oookz
this has to be AB - ( PP doesnt bother to look at masthead)
Got to p 50 of set text
and read something else ( carnot on thermodynamics and sohocles)
but hey the discussion is the usual high standard for AB !
TTT: // I'm not racist //
I know you probably believe that.
I'm sorry, but there is simply no other way to describe the suggestion that Black people are under-represented in mathematics and other sciences because (a few exceptions aside) they don't have the same aptitude for it as White people are more likely to, except as some level of racism. It fits the purest definition of it. That's sad.
Treating everyone on their merits regardless of skin colour (or any other factor) is of course the right attitude. But if you make the assumption that their "merits" are likely to be affected by skin colour it undercuts that. If on the one hand you treat the people you work with with respect, but on the other treat them as an exception rather than a rule, that undoes the good intention of the first part. It may not be "as" racist as a blanket rejection, but it is racism all the same.
I know you probably believe that.
I'm sorry, but there is simply no other way to describe the suggestion that Black people are under-represented in mathematics and other sciences because (a few exceptions aside) they don't have the same aptitude for it as White people are more likely to, except as some level of racism. It fits the purest definition of it. That's sad.
Treating everyone on their merits regardless of skin colour (or any other factor) is of course the right attitude. But if you make the assumption that their "merits" are likely to be affected by skin colour it undercuts that. If on the one hand you treat the people you work with with respect, but on the other treat them as an exception rather than a rule, that undoes the good intention of the first part. It may not be "as" racist as a blanket rejection, but it is racism all the same.
Pixie. // a distinct possibility//... why?///
Because such short lists are commonly utilised.
//"All lives matter" is too obvious to be worth saying. What do you think the point was?//
The point was that all lives do matter - but seemingly saying it isn’t acceptable - and that should worry everyone
//why do you see a move for equality as an "attack" on our country or history?//
Because I see our country and history being attacked.
Because such short lists are commonly utilised.
//"All lives matter" is too obvious to be worth saying. What do you think the point was?//
The point was that all lives do matter - but seemingly saying it isn’t acceptable - and that should worry everyone
//why do you see a move for equality as an "attack" on our country or history?//
Because I see our country and history being attacked.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.