Feminism largely invents non-issues

Feminism, is based on the false premise of female victimhood and historical oppression. This historical oppression is just not true. Historically women have been elevated in society and been cared for in a way over and above men. Women were given special privileges like being the first to be evacuated in a disaster, protected from hostile forces and not forced to fight in wars.

Women did not have the right to vote until the early 1900s and even then they had to be older than men (who could vote at 21) and meet more requirements. Before that, they could not vote at all.

It was once harder for women to get a divorce than it had been for a man, for example when it came to adultery. This only changed in the early 1900s.

Women did not have any custody over their children up until 1839, when they could have custody over children up to the age of seven.

Women did not have the right to vote until the early 1900s and even then they had to be older than men (who could vote at 21) and meet more requirements. Before that, they could not vote at all.

It was once harder for women to get a divorce than it had been for a man, for example when it came to adultery. This only changed in the early 1900s.

Women did not have any custody over their children up until 1839, when they could have custody over children up to the age of seven.

Okay, but it isn't before the early 20th century, or before 1839, it's 2018. Just because something historically had a good purpose doesn't mean it still does.

Now women in the UK have equal rights.

Women did not have the right to vote until the early 1900s and even then they had to be older than men (who could vote at 21) and meet more requirements. Before that, they could not vote at all.

It was once harder for women to get a divorce than it had been for a man, for example when it came to adultery. This only changed in the early 1900s.

Women did not have any custody over their children up until 1839, when they could have custody over children up to the age of seven.

So what if women didn’t have the right to vote. It’s like saying sharolders of a company can vote in the board but bondholders and employees can’t vote. Someone has to come up with a governance structure and when they created democracy it was one man one vote.

The man was considered the head of the household and therefore cast the vote to get the household represented. Hence you have heard the phrase “wearing the trousers”, it comes from the fact that in terms of natural roles, males have taken the lead role.

In the same way that the employees and bondholders are not being persecuted by not being allowed to vote. You could argue that it’s a lack of representation but they are not having their lives ruined (unlike Conservatives in Hollywood who are - and no one talks about it) - because we just like to create a lot of non-issues.

I have no issues with women doing any job or role they want. That’s called freedom but people creating victim cultures and trying to police our thoughts and language and constant government endorsed agendas to root out this so called oppression and prejudice that does doesn’t exist - is a threat to our freedom.

Should women have the right to vote, yes or no?

Should men be considered the head of the household, yes or no?

We live in a democratic society and women make up about 50% of the population. Governments vote upon laws and regulations which determine what life we can live. It is therefore only fair to allow all people (above reasonable age) the right to contribute to this process, be it through running as an MP, or voting directly in a referendum, etc.

A company isn't equivalent to a government for several reasons. For one, a company doesn't dictate the entire life of their employees, of which they employee far less than there are people in the country. An employee can also leave a company (with relative ease) should they dislike how it is run. You seem to also conveniently be unaware that there are companies which are run on democratic means.

Men are no longer heads of the household, nor should they be used to 'represent' the women of the household through their vote. A married man and women could have completely different opinions on politics.

How about five people choice? If woman or anyone she wants to vote / work or anything else legal, why not? If families want the man as the head of the household, why not? In the family wants the woman to be the head of the household, why not?

In most families the man is the head of the household and most people like it that way. The PC brigade don’t represent most people and according to Milo Yanopolis only 7% of Western women subscribe to feminism. What we need is freedom not people trying to show their agendas, dogmas and perceived victimhood down our throats, creating compelled speech, the use of state force to remove people’s free will and expensive Orwellian termed Conservative government Marxist quangos to oversee equality of outcomes that group differences prevent from naturally occurring.

So what if women didn’t have the right to vote. It’s like saying sharolders of a company can vote in the board but bondholders and employees can’t vote. Someone has to come up with a governance structure and when they created democracy it was one man one vote.

In the same way that the employees and bondholders are not being persecuted by not being allowed to vote.

Should men be considered the head of the household, yes or no?

Please answer the questions I asked:

Should women have the right to vote, yes or no?

Should men be considered the head of the household, yes or no?

Try to actually keep to one topic/point and not just ramble on about things which are irrelevant.

If a woman chooses to enter a relationship where the man is the head of the household, then that is fine. People being expected/forced to have those relationships isn't right. This was the norm in the past, although you seem to believe that it never was.

Women should have the right to vote.

People should have the right to consider whoever they want as the head of a household.

If most people chose to consider men as the head of households, cultural Marxists should just accept it, shut up about it and not try and change it through the institutions.

Neither did millions of working class men.
The vast majority of men that were killed in the trenches after being shamed into going by women, including feminsts, participating in the White Feather Campaign ( Google it) never had the vote either.
In the famous photo where Pankhurst is being arrested by two police officers outside Buckingham palace three people dont have the vote.
Pankhurst and the two coppers, but is shocking how few people know this.
I'll let you into a little fact I only found out myself a couple of years ago.
Despite my family going back as far as any other in this country my great grandfather was the first man in the history of our family to get the vote and he cast it in 1918 on the same day that my grandmother cast her vote.
He was 29 and she was 31.
Ofcourse to get the vote he had to be gassed and left partially sighted for the rest of his life. My grandmother god bless her didn't have to do anything.

Who is trying to do this?

Who is trying to force people to not allow a man to be the head of a household?

Do you accept, then, that women had been oppressed in the past?