Scroll to see replies
Original post by popper888
The suffragettes wanted to change the male goverment. Couldn't they have just set up their own?
This would only cause divide between the genders, the suffragettes wanted equality and not segregation. We are now living in a world where women have opportunity the same as men. We currently have a female Prime Minister (for how much longer I don't know
.) Some people may disagree with me here but, on the whole and in comparison to the time of the suffragettes, we've moved forward massively. The two main problems with what you have said: 1. It would be very complicated (or even more as our government is far from simple at present
) to have separte governments. 2. I think you a missing the point of the true suffragette movement which is equality and not segregation/divide.
yes and seperate planets too😑
Original post by popper888
The suffragettes wanted to change the male goverment. Couldn't they have just set up their own?
Ah yes. Because if women declared “we have a government” they of course would have had instant legal power and influence.
Why didn’t they think of that? Pssh.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by Rainfall
yes and seperate planets too😑
Don't be silly. Who am I going to shag then?
Original post by popper888
The suffragettes wanted to change the male goverment. Couldn't they have just set up their own?
No. Governments are supposed to be supreme. If the male governments were more successful in developing male-centred policies, would this be regarded as sexist?
What happens when men identify as women, but stll biologically male or gender-fluid? Who provides for them?
It will be crazy.
Original post by Bradley C
This would only cause divide between the genders, the suffragettes wanted equality and not segregation. We are now living in a world where women have opportunity the same as men. We currently have a female Prime Minister (for how much longer I don't know.) Some people may disagree with me here but, on the whole and in comparison to the time of the suffragettes, we've moved forward massively. The two main problems with what you have said:
1. It would be very complicated (or even more as our government is far from simple at present) to have separte governments.
2. I think you a missing the point of the true suffragette movement which is equality and not segregation/divide.
.) Some people may disagree with me here but, on the whole and in comparison to the time of the suffragettes, we've moved forward massively. The two main problems with what you have said: 1. It would be very complicated (or even more as our government is far from simple at present
) to have separte governments. 2. I think you a missing the point of the true suffragette movement which is equality and not segregation/divide.
Men and women want different things, so it is nonsense to talk about equality.
Original post by popper888
Men and women want different things, so it is nonsense to talk about equality.
what does this even mean?? do men want things that women aren’t allowed to want and vice versa??
Original post by bubblecat
what does this even mean?? do men want things that women aren’t allowed to want and vice versa??
It means that men and women are not the same, just as people of different races are not the same.
Original post by popper888
Men and women want different things, so it is nonsense to talk about equality.
What are you talking about? You can't generalise entire genders and assume you know what they want. People are individuals, and want they want varies tremendously. And anyhow, talking about equality is certainly not nonsense. Why should certain groups be punished or treated differently to others?
Original post by popper888
It means that men and women are not the same, just as people of different races are not the same.
Original post by popper888
It means that men and women are not the same, just as people of different races are not the same.
of course they are not the same. Nobody is the same. Doesn’t mean people cant want the same things or work together despite having different wants. The original comment was stupid
Original post by cgstanding
What are you talking about? You can't generalise entire genders and assume you know what they want. People are individuals, and want they want varies tremendously. And anyhow, talking about equality is certainly not nonsense. Why should certain groups be punished or treated differently to others?
The world would be a very different place if there were only women in it.
Original post by popper888
The suffragettes wanted to change the male goverment. Couldn't they have just set up their own?
How would the legal system operate: if a new law were to be passed, and the female government approved but the male government did not, would the law go through?
Having two government makes no sense as the reason behind a government is for the union of people to effectively govern the country from an equal perspective, voted in BY the people..
Having seperate governments not only revokes that idea, it also introduces direct conflict between two rival perspectives with equal influence (as populations are roughly 50/50 in terms of male and female populations) and all this does is promote violence and seperation between the two genders, which is exactly what The Suffragettes set out NOT to do, but to gain political and social equality and freedom in the mostly patriachal society ingrained in the past.
Original post by popper888
Men and women want different things, so it is nonsense to talk about equality.
I want different things to my neighbour.
Original post by popper888
It means that men and women are not the same, just as people of different races are not the same.
Doesn't change that in terms of rights and social freedoms, people want the same basic things (right to vote, right to own property, freedom to pursue careers they want, freedom from harassment etc) regardless of whether they've got internal or external plumbing.
Original post by TrojanHorse123
How would the legal system operate: if a new law were to be passed, and the female government approved but the male government did not, would the law go through?
Having two government makes no sense as the reason behind a government is for the union of people to effectively govern the country from an equal perspective, voted in BY the people..
Having seperate governments not only revokes that idea, it also introduces direct conflict between two rival perspectives with equal influence (as populations are roughly 50/50 in terms of male and female populations) and all this does is promote violence and seperation between the two genders, which is exactly what The Suffragettes set out NOT to do, but to gain political and social equality and freedom in the mostly patriachal society ingrained in the past.
Having two government makes no sense as the reason behind a government is for the union of people to effectively govern the country from an equal perspective, voted in BY the people..
Having seperate governments not only revokes that idea, it also introduces direct conflict between two rival perspectives with equal influence (as populations are roughly 50/50 in terms of male and female populations) and all this does is promote violence and seperation between the two genders, which is exactly what The Suffragettes set out NOT to do, but to gain political and social equality and freedom in the mostly patriachal society ingrained in the past.
The male and female governments would have different laws.
Original post by popper888
Men and women want different things, so it is nonsense to talk about equality.
I hope you realise that you're speaking on behalf of A LOT of people that may not necessarily agree with you. Are you saying that there are no shared hopes between men and women? At the end of the day, we all want a good quality of life whatever gender, age etc. you fall in to. I ask you this, without equality, where would we be? Are you suggesting that the genders should be opposing each other and fighting politically.
If one gender follows one set of rules and another gender follows a different set, how are we supposed to function together? Whose rules would be correct?
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
Doesn't change that in terms of rights and social freedoms, people want the same basic things (right to vote, right to own property, freedom to pursue careers they want, freedom from harassment etc) regardless of whether they've got internal or external plumbing.
The majority of women would vote for different things to the majority of men.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
