Women are like uncovered meat to a cat...

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Women gained the vote for themselves Dixie.

Oh really? Well tell me... just how, exactly, did that happen? It seems that we had to pass a Constitutional Amendment to allow for this, and since women couldn't vote, it was rather impossible for women to have gained this on their own.

 

[Damocles]

Women gained the vote for themselves Dixie.

Oh really? Well tell me... just how, exactly, did that happen? It seems that we had to pass a Constitutional Amendment to allow for this, and since women couldn't vote, it was rather impossible for women to have gained this on their own.

It was magic... you know. They went forward in time and got Diebold machines and flubbed the vote...

 

[Cancel7]

Women gained the vote for themselves Dixie.

Oh really? Well tell me... just how, exactly, did that happen? It seems that we had to pass a Constitutional Amendment to allow for this, and since women couldn't vote, it was rather impossible for women to have gained this on their own.

The history of the women's movement in this country, from the historic and infamous gathering at Seneca fall, to Susan B Anthony only a few years later, to Sojourner Truth's (suffragist AND ex-slave) history-shaking speech "ain't I a woman" and on to the passage of the 19th amendment, was driven and written by women.

Do you and the sneering Damo believe that the fat white congressmen, men so like yourselves, lined up to vote for the 19th amendment because they felt like it? Are you really that stupid?

Women drove not only the suffragist movement, but also, were the force behind the early progressive movement. Gaining the right to vote for women, as well as labor laws for women, on the grassroots level, state by state. They worked, they wrote, they were published, they organized, they marched, they chained themselves to Wilson's white house, they were arrested, they starved, they were brutalized...and they gained the vote.

How dare you and the sneering Dano come here and make these claims. Open a book and read morons.

I suggest you try out Theda Skopal's history of the welfare state in the United States, in which she traces the Progressive movement, and finds that the ones who accomplished labor and wage and health care regulations...all women. On behalf of women, and of children.

Then move on to the history of the suffrage movement.

Your ignorance is showing. And white penis or not, it's not impressive.

 

[Cypress]

Women gained the vote for themselves Dixie.

Oh really? Well tell me... just how, exactly, did that happen? It seems that we had to pass a Constitutional Amendment to allow for this, and since women couldn't vote, it was rather impossible for women to have gained this on their own.

Well, in the conservative world, the little wife probably stands barefoot in the kitchen and keeps her mouth shut in front of her husband.

But, in mainsteam 1920s america, women at home told the husbands their opinion, influenced the husbands opinon, infuenced their husbands vote, and withheld sex as a last resort.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Well, in the conservative world, the little wife probably stands barefoot in the kitchen and keeps her mouth shut in front of her husband.

But, in mainsteam 1920s america, women at home told the husbands their opinion, influenced the husbands opinon, infuenced their husbands vote, and withheld sex as a last resort.

Ah, yes: the Lysistrata effect.

In fact, women won the franchise for themselves in much the same way the people of India won their freedom from Britain. They demonstrated by example to the majority that their position was the only morally defensible one. In other words, they shamed the establishment into doing what they should have done long before.

 

[Cypress]

Ah, yes: the Lysistrata effect.

In fact, women won the franchise for themselves in much the same way the people of India won their freedom from Britain. They demonstrated by example to the majority that their position was the only morally defensible one. In other words, they shamed the establishment into doing what they should have done long before.

Bingo, and well said.

It wasn't like men just woke up one morning, and independently thought to themselves: "Why, I should really be voting to allow my wife, sister, and daughter the right to universal sufferage!".

It doesn't work that way, as you nicely pointed out.

 

[Damocles]

Bingo, and well said.

It wasn't like men just woke up one morning, and independently thought to themselves: "Why, I should really be voting to allow my wife, sister, and daughter the right to universal sufferage!".

It doesn't work that way, as you nicely pointed out.

However, there were many who did believe that women should vote that helped and worked with these women. There were men who believed it that wrote the Amendment, there were men who believed it who voted for the amendment... Pretending this happened in a vacuum with nobody at all believing that this should happen but a number of women is simply a self deception.

 

[Cypress]

However, there were many who did believe that women should vote that helped and worked with these women. There were men who believed it that wrote the Amendment, there were men who believed it who voted for the amendment... Pretending this happened in a vacuum with nobody at all believing that this should happen but a number of women is simply a self deception.

Like I said, women either influenced, or changed thier husbands/brothers/father's opinions. Sure, there were a small contingent of men who were enlightened. That wasn't where the battle was won.

I didn't see any men in those sufferage march photos of the 1920s.

And in the islamic world, I only see muslim women on the TV shows that show muslim people working for women's rights to vote.

 

[Damocles]

Like I said, women either influenced, or changed thier husbands/brothers/father's opinions. Sure, there were a small contingent of men who were enlightened. That wasn't where the battle was won.

I didn't see any men in those sufferage march photos of the 1920s.

And in the islamic world, I only see muslim women on the TV shows that show muslim people working for women's rights to vote.

It was however important that they be there... and pretending that they were not helpful, that they didn't exist, that only women worked toward this goal, is just self-congratulatory pretense.

Just as many slaves were freed by whites that worked hard and faced prison to get them across a line, to pretend that only the blacks worked towards civil rights is also pretense. There were many out there beside them and they should not be forgotten or pushed aside as unimportant side-effects.

 

[Cypress]

It was however important that they be there... and pretending that they were not helpful, that they didn't exist, that only women worked toward this goal, is just self-congratulatory pretense.

Just as many slaves were freed by whites that worked hard and faced prison to get them across a line, to pretend that only the blacks worked towards civil rights is also pretense. There were many out there beside them and they should not be forgotten or pushed aside as unimportant side-effects.

Okay, Damo.

Just like the third-string punter plays a role in helping the Chicago Bears win, thus the independetntly enlightened man of 1890 - who wasn't, and didn't need to be, shamed or influenced by his sister or mother to support universal sufferage - played a role in the sufferage movement.

 

[Damocles]

Okay, Damo.

Just like the third-string punter plays a role in helping the Chicago Bears win, thus the independetntly enlightened man of 1890 - who wasn't, and didn't need to be, shamed or influenced by his sister or mother to support universal sufferage - played a role in the sufferage movement.

Giving them the role of a third string punter is more of the same. Attempting to take from the importance of those who worked with them is that very self-congratulatory pretense. It is PC run amock. We must ignore the efforts of the people that don't fit a specific stereotype so we can pretend that only the victim stopped the problem?

 

[Cancel7]

Giving them the role of a third string punter is more of the same. Attempting to take from the importance of those who worked with them is that very self-congratulatory pretense. It is PC run amock. We must ignore the efforts of the people that don't fit a specific stereotype so we can pretend that only the victim stopped the problem?

That's what they were. Give examples of any you feel were anything more.

Stop the emoting, and start providing back up.

If you feel the poor white male is not being properly accredited for ending the system HE HIMSELF instituted, disenfranchising everyone but himself, give examples and details. Show how the white male did anything for suffrage like what Alice Paul, Elizabeth B Anthony, Soujourner Truth, Cady Stanton did. Show how much lesser known and unsung white men formed grass roots organizations and fought on state levels for the right for women to vote, and for labor regulations (and please show them being passed) protecting women and children again on the state levels.

Follow the history of the suffragist movement, from state to state, to, eventually, the federal level, and it's filled with women, women and more women.

I'm sorry that this bothers you and Dixie and maybe others, but hit the history books and take it like a man.

They were third string punters.

 

[maineman]

well said Darla..... very well said!

 

[Cancel7]

well said Darla..... very well said!

Thanks. It's nice to see a man who gets it.

 

[Prakosh]

We have the leading Muslim cleric in our allied partner country of Australia, suggesting that women who are raped are asking for it by dressing provocatively, and further stating that they should have been in their rooms with their hijab covering their heads and there would have been no problem.

I don't know about you, but to me, this is a good example of how the radical Muslim fanatics who have waged war on us, think the rest of the world should live. It seems like, the NOW people and women's rights advocates would be outraged by this sort of commentary, but they are silent. It seems to me, liberals who claim to care so much about personal freedom and equality, would be incensed by the comments, but they are silent as well. Instead of condemning this sort of ideology, they are all busy condemning Bush for fighting this sort of ideology. Look at your own comments, you are not even willing to acknowledge this point, you have to twist and spin things around and challenge me on domestic issues that haven't a thing to do with the ideology expressed by the Sheik.

The point you should ALL be getting is, these people believe this way and want to force the entire world to live by this ideology. They believe in treating women as objects, and adhering to some 5th century standard of treating women as inferior beings, incapable of making their own decisions on how to dress. For people so hyper-sensitive about women's rights and equality, it amazes me that you will continue to bash Bush instead of standing on your principles.

So I guess we are far advanced beyond what this cleric thinks because some of us actually get it and don't believe that women who get raped were asking for it anymore. Fair enough, I know I don't think that, but there are plenty of people who do still believe that judging from the defenses put forth by those who have been charged with rape. In almost every defense the first thing that is introduced is the character of the victim. In no other case, is the character of the victim generally a mitigating factor, but it always is in a rape charge. Why is the character of the victim such a big deal and still so prevalent? When someone robs a bank for instance no one ever challenges the character of the bank manager do they? So why do they still challenge the character of a rape victim? And this isn't in some Muslim Theocreacy this is right here in the good ol' U. S. of A. So answer the question, why is a woman's character still the most important aspect of a rape defense?????

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The point is, abolition, women's suffrage and civil rights, were all supported by someone other than the "victim". This was the original argument, and it stands. None of these ideals would have ultimately passed, had it not been for outside influences, regardless of speculations on motivations. To pretend this is not the case, is ignorance of reality.

The same kind of injustice is present today, in the radical Muslim ideology that suppresses women and resigns them to objects, covered, cloaked and in their rooms. The "victim" is unable to overcome this on their own, just as the slaves and others have been, and it's incumbent upon a civilized society, to stand up for these rights in the face of adversity. This alone, defines the difference between courage and cowardice, in my opinion.

 

[Beefy]

The point is, abolition, women's suffrage and civil rights, were all supported by someone other than the "victim". This was the original argument, and it stands. None of these ideals would have ultimately passed, had it not been for outside influences, regardless of speculations on motivations. To pretend this is not the case, is ignorance of reality.

The same kind of injustice is present today, in the radical Muslim ideology that suppresses women and resigns them to objects, covered, cloaked and in their rooms. The "victim" is unable to overcome this on their own, just as the slaves and others have been, and it's incumbent upon a civilized society, to stand up for these rights in the face of adversity. This alone, defines the difference between courage and cowardice, in my opinion.

You talk of radical Islam, with the focus on Islam. Your focus is misguided. The focus should be on the word "radical", not Muslim or Islam. The key is the word radical. Radical anything is wholly destructive. It is the "radical" that you should be bemused with, not the religion.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You talk of radical Islam, with the focus on Islam. Your focus is misguided. The focus should be on the word "radical", not Muslim or Islam. The key is the word radical. Radical anything is wholly destructive. It is the "radical" that you should be bemused with, not the religion.

This is amazing. You first indicate that you read "radical" in my post, then you somehow decide that my focus was not on "radical" but on Islam, then you proceed to lecture me about radicalism. What is it with you, do you just not want to credit me with the words I posted? Is it so important for you to "beat" me, that you have to intentionally misinterpret me? I think I made it very clear that I was talking about "radical Muslims" when I fucking posted the words "radical Muslim" and I am a bit miffed as to where you derived my "focus" from.

The point, again, for your pinheaded ass... is this warped view toward women that radical Islamics subscribe to, and the lack of apparent outrage from liberals who CLAIM they stand for the oppressed, but don't seem to have the least bit of interest in doing so here. In fact, just the opposite, the left is doing everything in their power to undermine the attempts to combat this ideology. If it were a Christian-expressed ideology, things would be considerably different, there wouldn't be enough bandwidth on the Internet to support the venomous spewing and gyrating over these comments, but since it's an Aussie Muslim, they can do their little tap dance and claim they still care, when they really don't give a shit.

 

[Beefy]

You did use the word "radical" in your post. I'm interested in why you have the urge to side step that fact. And I really didn't lecture you. I merely made an observation.

Yes, your point is received well, that injustice is being done, and that is intolerable, regardless of how much hypocrisy is shown by NOW, or other liberal womens organizations. This doesn't however, absolve you of the same kind of hypocrisy.

You are finding joy or satisfaction in pointing out this hypocrisy, but there's ultimately no joy to be found. You are finding celebration in conflict, and thus you are enabling this kind of thought.

 

[Damocles]

That's what they were. Give examples of any you feel were anything more.

Stop the emoting, and start providing back up.

If you feel the poor white male is not being properly accredited for ending the system HE HIMSELF instituted, disenfranchising everyone but himself, give examples and details. Show how the white male did anything for suffrage like what Alice Paul, Elizabeth B Anthony, Soujourner Truth, Cady Stanton did. Show how much lesser known and unsung white men formed grass roots organizations and fought on state levels for the right for women to vote, and for labor regulations (and please show them being passed) protecting women and children again on the state levels.

Follow the history of the suffragist movement, from state to state, to, eventually, the federal level, and it's filled with women, women and more women.

I'm sorry that this bothers you and Dixie and maybe others, but hit the history books and take it like a man.

They were third string punters.

Nah, they were more like the Field Goal Kicker in a game of great defense...

To say that the kicker doesn't play a part in the game would insure a loss without them.

They clearly aren't the largest portion of it, but they become the only one that scores.