Remembering Sqad On His Birthday
ChatterBank1 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
Naomi, there is every chance a black lesbian could do a particular job as well as you or I. You aren't that daft or easily influenced by what you read (I think).
"White lives matter" was clearly perfectly acceptable, but pointless... as we already know this. We haven't had to fight for it.
I still don't see an 'attack"... just an effort towards a change of attitude. I didn't expect you personally, to either take it personally, or be scared of change. But there you go.
"White lives matter" was clearly perfectly acceptable, but pointless... as we already know this. We haven't had to fight for it.
I still don't see an 'attack"... just an effort towards a change of attitude. I didn't expect you personally, to either take it personally, or be scared of change. But there you go.
jim; "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. " - where have I said that? All I've said all along is that different people have different aptitudes and it's just possible that certain groups of humans naturally have natural aptitudes in certain subjects. I also said it's not possible to debate this suggestion because of hysterics from people like yourself. You have just demonstrated perfectly what I mean. Are you 100% certain that there is no tendency to aptitude across human groups?
Pixie, you brought black lesbians into this - not I - and I’ve no doubt some could do the job as well. The point is those who aren’t black lesbians shouldn’t be excluded from a list of potential candidates. The definition of equality is mighty elastic when it suits.
The slogan we’re discussing is ‘All Lives Matter’ - but there’s no reason ‘White Lives Matter’ shouldn’t be acceptable too.
Neither your expectation nor your opinion of me have a place in this discussion.
The slogan we’re discussing is ‘All Lives Matter’ - but there’s no reason ‘White Lives Matter’ shouldn’t be acceptable too.
Neither your expectation nor your opinion of me have a place in this discussion.
The slogan was acceptable, as we know, naomi. Just pointless.
Yes, I did bring in "black lesbians". We already know that women and minorities are still under-represented, after several centuries... I'll ask you, as the other two won't answer.... are they genuinely less capable, or have they had less opportunities?
Personal observations are never necessary, no... Although it doesn't stop you either at times. So, an outright question- if black people became the majority here, what are you scared of?
Yes, I did bring in "black lesbians". We already know that women and minorities are still under-represented, after several centuries... I'll ask you, as the other two won't answer.... are they genuinely less capable, or have they had less opportunities?
Personal observations are never necessary, no... Although it doesn't stop you either at times. So, an outright question- if black people became the majority here, what are you scared of?
intersting article here:
https:/
from the article:
//In a very short time, it is likely that we will identify many of the genetic variants underlying individual differences in intelligence. We should be prepared for the possibility that these variants are not distributed identically among all geographic populations, and that this explains some of the phenotypic differences in measured intelligence among groups.// heresy, surely? //However, some philosophers and scientists believe that we should refrain from conducting research that might demonstrate the (partly) genetic origin of group differences in IQ. Many scholars view academic interest in this topic as inherently morally suspect or even racist. //
yes indeed even research in this area is often labelled as racist.
https:/
from the article:
//In a very short time, it is likely that we will identify many of the genetic variants underlying individual differences in intelligence. We should be prepared for the possibility that these variants are not distributed identically among all geographic populations, and that this explains some of the phenotypic differences in measured intelligence among groups.// heresy, surely? //However, some philosophers and scientists believe that we should refrain from conducting research that might demonstrate the (partly) genetic origin of group differences in IQ. Many scholars view academic interest in this topic as inherently morally suspect or even racist. //
yes indeed even research in this area is often labelled as racist.
// Are you 100% certain that there is no tendency to aptitude across human groups? //
I'm not 100% certain of anything, it's a meaningless standard and impossible to obtain. The problem as I see it is (at least) twofold:
1. Let's allow for the moment that racial, or sexual, or other genetic disparities do exist that tend to predispose people to favour one activity over another. As you'll gather I don't believe this to be meaningfully true for a second, but the larger flaw in this is that genetics is but one part of the picture. There is also nurture, upbringing, societal considerations, and myriad other factors that I either can't think of right now or can't be bothered to list. We are more than the product of our genetics. So in that sense, even if there were a genetic factor at play, it will not be the dominant factor in determining why, in the US at the moment, Black mathematicians are outnumbered 99:1 or whatever it was. So the entire problem with the suggestion is that it's a distraction from the issues that can be fixed. You speak of how wonderful it was to see the women in the Hidden Figures film overcome the extreme prejudice and other barriers; talent does ultimately shine through. But it should never have been so hard in the first place. Inertia against such changes is not easy to overcome and we can hardly pretend that we've won the battle yet, in the UK or anywhere else.
2. I'd say the first issue amounts to an "unintentional distraction", ie you can reasonably argue that it's a scientific necessity that all enquiries be undertaken and nothing is left to assumption, but unfortunately that also means that you end up chasing the less-important issue and getting distracted from other problems. But the other point is that, sadly, racism plays a part in this picture at all. Eugenics is an ugly word these days, but it started in what seemed at the time to be a reasonable scientific enquiry: are there lessons for humanity to be drawn from selective breeding of animals? It took almost no time at all for that to turn into blatant racism, because both the concept itself is inherently racist and because it looks just intellectual enough to be a perfect front for those who already had such views and just wanted a flimsy justification for them. It is, for example, suspicious in the extreme how often "the White Man" ends up on the better side of such scientific research.
Your most recent link is a prime example of this. The Editors themselves explain that the research presented therein is based on, at best, controversial interpretations of the data. But nor is this anything new. Scientific racism has a rich and disturbing history.
I'm not 100% certain of anything, it's a meaningless standard and impossible to obtain. The problem as I see it is (at least) twofold:
1. Let's allow for the moment that racial, or sexual, or other genetic disparities do exist that tend to predispose people to favour one activity over another. As you'll gather I don't believe this to be meaningfully true for a second, but the larger flaw in this is that genetics is but one part of the picture. There is also nurture, upbringing, societal considerations, and myriad other factors that I either can't think of right now or can't be bothered to list. We are more than the product of our genetics. So in that sense, even if there were a genetic factor at play, it will not be the dominant factor in determining why, in the US at the moment, Black mathematicians are outnumbered 99:1 or whatever it was. So the entire problem with the suggestion is that it's a distraction from the issues that can be fixed. You speak of how wonderful it was to see the women in the Hidden Figures film overcome the extreme prejudice and other barriers; talent does ultimately shine through. But it should never have been so hard in the first place. Inertia against such changes is not easy to overcome and we can hardly pretend that we've won the battle yet, in the UK or anywhere else.
2. I'd say the first issue amounts to an "unintentional distraction", ie you can reasonably argue that it's a scientific necessity that all enquiries be undertaken and nothing is left to assumption, but unfortunately that also means that you end up chasing the less-important issue and getting distracted from other problems. But the other point is that, sadly, racism plays a part in this picture at all. Eugenics is an ugly word these days, but it started in what seemed at the time to be a reasonable scientific enquiry: are there lessons for humanity to be drawn from selective breeding of animals? It took almost no time at all for that to turn into blatant racism, because both the concept itself is inherently racist and because it looks just intellectual enough to be a perfect front for those who already had such views and just wanted a flimsy justification for them. It is, for example, suspicious in the extreme how often "the White Man" ends up on the better side of such scientific research.
Your most recent link is a prime example of this. The Editors themselves explain that the research presented therein is based on, at best, controversial interpretations of the data. But nor is this anything new. Scientific racism has a rich and disturbing history.
A good example of this would be the enquiries of such people as Boyle (of the gas law), Buffon (one of the early giants of Natural History), and Linnaeus.
Boyle and Buffon were proponents of "monogenism", the idea that all human "races" had the same origin. This is also heavily tied to religion, but it's reasonable to assume that "Adam and Eve" can just as well describe "the first humans". In any case, the idea is quite radical in a sense that people who look radically different have the same origin. How unfortunate, then, that both of these people and their supporters argued that "Adam and Eve" were White; Buffon going one step further by arguing that other races emerged because of poor diets or environmental factors leading to a "degeneration", or argued that "I have allotted the first place to the Caucasian ..." (not actually Buffon, but one of his contemporaries).
Linnaeus, on the other hand, did just straight up divide humanity into five different races, and went further by characterising their cultures:
"European ... gentle, acute, inventive; governed by laws";
"Asian... severe, haughty, greedy; ruled by opinions";
"African... phlegmatic, females without shame, crafty, sly, lazy, cunning, lustful, careless ... governed by caprice."
The father of taxonomy can hardly be accused of having no intellect, but he manifestly used it to strengthen his and his fellow Europeans' claims to superiority.
There is nothing new under the Sun.
Boyle and Buffon were proponents of "monogenism", the idea that all human "races" had the same origin. This is also heavily tied to religion, but it's reasonable to assume that "Adam and Eve" can just as well describe "the first humans". In any case, the idea is quite radical in a sense that people who look radically different have the same origin. How unfortunate, then, that both of these people and their supporters argued that "Adam and Eve" were White; Buffon going one step further by arguing that other races emerged because of poor diets or environmental factors leading to a "degeneration", or argued that "I have allotted the first place to the Caucasian ..." (not actually Buffon, but one of his contemporaries).
Linnaeus, on the other hand, did just straight up divide humanity into five different races, and went further by characterising their cultures:
"European ... gentle, acute, inventive; governed by laws";
"Asian... severe, haughty, greedy; ruled by opinions";
"African... phlegmatic, females without shame, crafty, sly, lazy, cunning, lustful, careless ... governed by caprice."
The father of taxonomy can hardly be accused of having no intellect, but he manifestly used it to strengthen his and his fellow Europeans' claims to superiority.
There is nothing new under the Sun.
-- answer removed --
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.