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?
1918 – Representation of the People Act
This is effectively when universal male suffrage happened.
All men aged 21+ could vote
1928 – Equal Franchise Act
Full equality: women could vote at 21+, the same as men.
People keep making this a men vs women thing, but that’s a distraction. There is no war but the class war. Don’t let the owner class further divide the proletariat.
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.
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.
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.
You don’t convince those who dont consider you human hy begging.
Correct. You start by convincing them that you’re human. That’s a large part of the reason that there was a very rapid sea-change in gay rights.
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: […]
As a 2A enthusiast, THIS IS WHY I’VE BEEN TELLING LGBTQ+, WOMEN, NON-WHITE PEOPLE, AND RELIGIOUS MINORITIES TO GET FUCKING ARMED FOR THE LAST DECADE. Unless and until you can build a coalition that agrees that you are human, and have rights, you need to be able to use violence as a tool to protect yourself, and your community. This is why I’m a firearms instructor, this is I offer free training to and LGBTQ+, non-white, non-christian, or non-male person that wants it.
You convince them by making them afraid. Fear and violence is the only dialogue with one who is steadfastly determined not to understand you or regard you as himan.
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.
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.
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.
A good point! In London,
1918 – Representation of the People Act This is effectively when universal male suffrage happened. All men aged 21+ could vote
1928 – Equal Franchise Act Full equality: women could vote at 21+, the same as men.
People keep making this a men vs women thing, but that’s a distraction. There is no war but the class war. Don’t let the owner class further divide the proletariat.
Ok. Everybody can get back to meme’n now.
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.
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.
Correct. You start by convincing them that you’re human. That’s a large part of the reason that there was a very rapid sea-change in gay rights.
As a 2A enthusiast, THIS IS WHY I’VE BEEN TELLING LGBTQ+, WOMEN, NON-WHITE PEOPLE, AND RELIGIOUS MINORITIES TO GET FUCKING ARMED FOR THE LAST DECADE. Unless and until you can build a coalition that agrees that you are human, and have rights, you need to be able to use violence as a tool to protect yourself, and your community. This is why I’m a firearms instructor, this is I offer free training to and LGBTQ+, non-white, non-christian, or non-male person that wants it.
You convince them by making them afraid. Fear and violence is the only dialogue with one who is steadfastly determined not to understand you or regard you as himan.
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
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!
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.