Those were the good ol days.
Lol here’s a sexist joke.
Why do they teach women’s studies but not men’s studies? Well they do it’s just called history :P
It’s funny, because what women did in the 1910s to win the vote would almost certainly be described as “terrorism” in the modern moment
Yeah anything that works even a little is terrorism.
For real. Magas transported back to 1910’s would be like
Your are against male privilege, you are trying to get new “rights”, and you want to change our God given right to treat women how they deserve to be?
Sounds like woke Antifa terrorism to me.
Even funnier, this is the exact thing they would say about ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment today.
No no. You don’t understand.
Sufferegates were doing bombings and arsons.
The campaign, led by key WSPU figures such as Emmeline Pankhurst, targeted infrastructure, government, churches and the general public, and saw the use of improvised explosive devices, arson, letter bombs, assassination attempts and other forms of direct action and violence.
This is hyperbole
Sounds like woke Antifa terrorism to me.
If modern leftists had an ounce of the enthusiasm of First Wave Feminists, we’d unironically be talking about them like we talk about Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski
So some extremists killed some people who were denounced by suffragettes as terrorists.
These extremists didn’t get the right to vote and instead gave up their struggle for the war.
Is someone wearing rose colored glasses comparing suffragettes to murderers thus conflating an effective peaceful movement with an ineffective violent one?
No id be saying “all my comrades are way cooler than me. I need to get my shit together; there’s a real chance we could win a future where theres still habitable earth.”
Instead of “you’re all dipshit reactionaries cosplaying 1950s civil rights movements and not trying to actually change anything. Love the vibes though. Wanna get high?”
you’re all dipshit reactionaries cosplaying 1950s civil rights movements and not trying to actually change anything.
Idk who this “you all” is. Pretty wide spectrum of individuals in the movement
Rights are never given, they’re taken, all the way back to the Magna Carta. Rights can also be taken away if people don’t step up and defend them. The universe does not care about us!
Rights are taken by force and then forfeited again by future generations who took no part in the original sacrifice. For example, habeas corpus established in the Magna Carta is less of a guaranteed right in the USA after Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act that legalized indefinite detention of citizens.
Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act
I’m so glad that somebody still remembers that. He also decided that summary executions of US citizens was just fine, demolishing another pillar of due process. “Voting blue” on its own does nothing to safeguard our rights.
Yep! The universe doesn’t guarantee rights after they’re won! It’s not like points on a scoreboard. It’s more like territory on a map. Rights must be continually defended!
We’re watching our rights being systematically removed and or history be erased in real time
They dont sound appreciative, we should withhold them again.
Get humor.
Wish more women knew that. Especially those voting for libs and far-right.
The sufragette movement pressured the government (men) to give women the right to vote. In what universe is this not an accurate description of what happened?
I’d like to remind everyone that universal men voting rights are not that much older in most countries.
This was done via state campaigns to change state law giving women in targeted state the right to vote. Once enough states had that right/law on the books it made federal constitutional amendment possible, without needing to lobby the federal government to give women the right.
Office, I didn’t take anything. I simply showed the man my revolver and he helpfully opened his wallet and gave me everything inside
Yes, this is essentially the sense in which I mean “give.” You got it. This is unironically why the OP image is ragebait – “give” is literally what happened. I don’t know of anyone who would deny the suffragettes and their agitation are the reason women were given the right to vote.
Again: the agitation of the suffragettes might be the reason that men voted for 19A, but without men voting to introduce and ratify 19A, no amount of agitation would have been sufficient. Outright terrorism wouldn’t have worked, without men choosing to vote for 19A. The only other way women would have gotten the right to vote was by using sufficient levels of violence to overthrow the state governments.
That’s the fundamental reason that minority groups–non-white people, LGBTQ+ people, etc.–NEED allies. Unless the majority is willing to vote to give full rights to minorities, unless there’s a sea-change in public opinion, you simply don’t see minorities being given rights equal to the majority.
willing to vote
You clearly do not understand how power works.
Allies are great. You don’t them for voting. If all someone’s willing to do is vote, they are not an ally.
You need to make the powerful suffer. That is the only way to step outside the margins.
You simply don’t get it.
When you don’t have the right to vote, your actions that make the majority ‘suffer’ can be criminalized, and the people that can vote then have much, much more power to make YOU suffer than you do to hurt them. Look at Iran, or Afghanistan. Do you really think that women in those countries have the ability to affect any change in society at all without convincing the men, and the religious leaders first?
I assume you’ve read The Handmaid’s Tale?
Women at the turn of the century simply did not have enough ability to effectively wield violence to overcome that kind of power. That’s why you need to convince people that DO have power.
You don’t convince those who dont consider you human hy begging.
Voting only matters if they already care what you, at least as a class/population, think. Voting is not power, no more than a text message or a crayon is. If you don’t have something behind it, the currently powrful have no reason to give a single solitary fuck what you want.
Womens liberation did not come from the right to vote. You have it precisely backwards, and there is a left feminist anti-suffrage argument i wont hurt your lib headgristle with.
I say this as someone from part of a group it’s very hard to keep from voting and expects men with guns to drag me out of bed and take me to the camps any month now: fuck you, you’re why I’m going to die. Fuck you. I’m sure you’re privileged enough to survive this, nobody as ferventlu pig ignorant as you could be otherwise, but it will almost be worth it if they get you too. I hope my emaciated corpsey ass is still around to see your shitlib “nobody could have known” panic when they dump you at whatever novelty shit hell concentration camp they build next.
Sincerely: fuck you. Your willful boot picking ignorance has put the round thats gonna kill me in the air. I’m just waiting for it to hit. Mostly alone, because you scum are still obsessed with your juromantic rituals, and im kind of expecting to be snitched out for existing.
Well this is “ally” in the liberal, within-the-system sense of the word. That’s still what most people would see as an ally.
Most people who arent marginalized and dont need anything, yeah. Totally.
fully agree
Giving something at gunpoint isnt really giving it.
That thing is being taken.
I think this is the source of our disagreement. In my mind, the word “give” has at most a mild connotation of volition.
Interesting. So like whats the dividing line between ‘being given something’ and ‘taking something’?
For me, you can’t use ‘give’ if there was no action on the giver’s behalf, but coerced action counts as action. Same with take – you ‘take’ something only if you’re capable of a ‘take’ action. So if you’re in a coma, you can’t ‘take’ anything offered to you (except in idiomatic phrases where action on the taker isn’t expected, e.g. “to take abuse”).
This is why I seriously believe that OP’s image is controversial more do to a difference in our linguistic understanding of the word “give” than do to a differing understanding of the facts.
Edit: I think what may be happening here is the so-called “non-central” fallacy.
They convinced the men (who the majority of legislators were) in the same way that the gay community convinced the ‘straights’ (who the majority of legislators were) re same-sex marriage.
That said, it’s very reductionist to consider the 19th amendment as the moment ‘all women’ joined ‘all men’ in having the right to vote. Many women were voting before the 19th (women already had full voting rights in 15 states by the time it was ratified), and many men weren’t before, and still weren’t for long after, the 19th was ratified.
Yes, I agree with all of this. It happened very much like the way the straights were convinced.
That’s not how any of that happened!
In the US, Wyoming prostitutes gave women the right to vote. Because women were so scarce in the territory, they held a lot of power, political and economic. Wyoming women demanded the right to vote and hold office and the men ratified the right happily. When the US wanted Wyoming to join the union, Wyoming’s response was “not without our women”. So, that’s how Wyoming became the first state in the union to allow women citizens to vote.
Sex workers are consistently at or near the vanguard of good social change.
people with the most exposure to how fucked things are are always the most likely to seek solutions that will unfuck things
I’m ignorant on the topic. Do you know where I can learn more about this?
Basically any radical history or sex worker activist or history of sex work that doesn’t have a bullshit agenda.
Sorry I’d be more particular but I’m nowhere near sober.
I don’t know in general, but Lou Graham, the Seattle Madam is a pretty famous historical figure and did an immense amount of good, including HUGE donations to children’s education.
Hell yeah I love women
I can’t believe this is something that needs to be stated. It does, clearly, but the fact that it needs to be stated boggles the mind.
If you’re a man in current year that holds onto the idea that women only have rights because men decided to stop beating/subjugating them — Jesus tap dancing Christ go see a therapist.
Serious question even though I know if the answer isn’t “no one” it just sound stupid or loaded to people from these cultural circles:
Who twists the history in a way to light voting rights for women as some kind of male achievement? Oo
I mean I’ve heard of individual men being supportive but that word already implies them not being the drivers.
I’m genuinely curious because with no exposure to that framing the post reads like ragebaiting - but it also might be justified rage I just wasn’t exposed to so far, if you get my drift.
It’s being referred to as a privilege that can be taken away. There has been discussion among the ultra right in the last four years of making the male head of household the only one with voting rights.
This law is being pushed to “protect the integrity of votes” by only letting people vote if their name matches their birth certificate, which would put up a barrier to climb over for married women who have changed their last name and trans people whose names don’t match their birth certificate and people who don’t have access to or the money to get a copy of their birth certificate.
The Pentagon says Pete Hegseth supports women’s right to vote, even though he reposts videos of church leaders saying they should not vote.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/15/politics/pentagon-hegseth-womens-right-to-vote
I’m a divorced cisgender woman who legally changed my name to something that is neither my maiden name nor my married name and got a new birth certificate to back it up. I wonder if I’d get around their stupid rules or if they’d just drag me out back and execute me.
Depends on your state of fertility. You may be given a red dress and assigned to a new house. Blessed be the fruit.
Thankfully I found a doctor who permanently took care of that problem forever :) I am one of the conservatives’ nightmares: a divorced 30-something single cat lady who can’t have babies, lives alone, and works a fuck ton of hours to pay all my own bills. I’m also useless as a housewife and I curse a fuckton. Meek tradwife/breeding material I am not.
You can actually get a new/updated birth certificate? I thought that was pretty much ‘set in stone’ with essentially ‘what’s true at the moment of birth’, had no idea that was possible.
I didn’t know either! Before I updated it things were a pain in the ass because I was hauling around my birth certificate, marriage certificate, divorce paperwork, and legal name change paperwork, and was constantly having to explain how I got from birth name to current name via marriage but also that I wasn’t currently married. It confused everyone when I was like “so here’s my legal name change paperwork but the previous name on that doesn’t match my birth certificate because it’s my married name but I’m not married anymore so here’s my married license that shows my maiden name which is what’s on the birth certificate and here’s my divorce paperwork showing I’m not married anymore”. So annoying and I was sick of having to be reminded of my marriage.
Turns out (at least in my state) all it took was sending in a notorized form ($7 at the UPS store), an official copy of my legal name change, and the fee for a new birth certificate (I think like $25). It took about 4 months, but I have a new birth certificate that is identical to my old one in every way, except it has my current legal name on it. Absolutely fills me with joy because now my social security card, passport, drivers license, and birth certificate all match and I’ll never have to haul around the rest of that paperwork again. One of my FTM trans coworkers updated his birth certificate and it shows his new name and his gender as male.
You would think “my name changed at marriage, and I legally changed it to a name other than my birth name after that” would be simple enough for people to understand!
Thanks for the info, very interesting.
Oh my fucking god. Like … I knew that the US politics were derailed/deranged but. Wait, I’m actually surprised that I’m surprised by this. It’s … Consistent.
Thanks for this anyway, today I learned something - although the thing itself is shitty the learning isn’t 💜
The political right in the US is doing that.
Often that’s conflated into meaning just men in general tho
Men like Trump, who want to get credit for all the things that people supporting him consider good, and deflect blame for all the crappy things he’s actually responsible for (or that any respectable leader would take responsibility for because they are the leader, regardless of if they actually were behind it).
Oh shit, did he go as far as to claim he was personally responsible? Wouldn’t surprise me.
It would be hilarious if Trump claimed to be personally responsible for women voting rights though. Terrifying but also funny!
Remember that your power was used to get you voting ‘rights’, not derived from them.
Then people fixed that shit*
Ftfy
I thought it said slut. Thanks
Shit
AHHHHH! The horror…
Needs text alternative.
Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative such as link:
- usability
- we can’t quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR
- text search is unavailable
- the system can’t
- reflow text to varied screen sizes
- vary presentation (size, contrast)
- vary modality (audio, braille)
- accessibility
- lacks semantic structure (tags for titles, heading levels, sections, paragraphs, lists, emphasis, code, links, accessibility features, etc)
- some users can’t read this due to lack of alt text
- users can’t adapt the text for dyslexia or vision impairments
- systems can’t read the text to them or send it to braille devices
- web connectivity
- we have to do failure-prone bullshit to find the original source
- we can’t explore wider context of the original message
- authenticity: we don’t know the image hasn’t been tampered
- searchability: the “text” isn’t indexable by search engine in a meaningful way
- fault tolerance: no text fallback if
- image breaks
- image host is geoblocked due to insane regulations.
Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.
Welcome to the concept of fundamental/inherent/inalienable human rights & liberties from liberal philosophy (ie, liberalism). Authorities don’t “give” fundamental rights, they respect or repress them.
- usability
