Why do we never talk about how men got the right vote?
Scroll to see replies
men didn't moan
Original post by offhegoes
In what way were men discriminated against?.
You mean apart from being the ones forced to fight and die amongst the shredded bodies of their brothers on the Somme?
Would you rather be a woman and be not have the vote or live and die through the hell on earth of the trenches?
Of course while it was wrong that women had to suffer one of these discriminations, millions of men fighting had to suffer both as they were slaughtered and never had the vote either.
Original post by DiddyDec
Both men and women were discriminated against but each for different reasons.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Spot on.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by caravaggio2
You mean apart from being the ones forced to fight and die amongst the shredded bodies of their brothers on the Somme?
Would you rather be a woman and be not have the vote or live and die through the hell on earth of the trenches?
Of course while it was wrong that women had to suffer one of these discriminations, millions of men fighting had to suffer both as they were slaughtered and never had the vote either.
Would you rather be a woman and be not have the vote or live and die through the hell on earth of the trenches?
Of course while it was wrong that women had to suffer one of these discriminations, millions of men fighting had to suffer both as they were slaughtered and never had the vote either.
I notice that you have taken the first part of my post and ignored the rest, which clarified that I was disputing the statement made that "men were discriminated against", which you yourself have just repeated.
The poor were discriminated against, which impacted, amongst any others, poor men who were made to fight. They were not discriminated against because of their gender, but because they were poor. Society in general discriminated not against men, but against poor people and women.
Please try not to paraphrase unless you're prepared to answer the question I asked in the context I was a at pains to make clear.
I agree. While women getting the vote was obviously a great victory and a momentous achievement for the left and for us as a nation which should definitely be taught in schools, so was getting the right to vote for all men and it's important that this is taught as well, so that everyone over 18 knows that their vote is something that was fought hard for and won and that using it should, in that light, be considered a civic duty.
Original post by offhegoes
I notice that you have taken the first part of my post and ignored the rest, which clarified that I was disputing the statement made that "men were discriminated against", which you yourself have just repeated.
The poor were discriminated against, which impacted, amongst any others, poor men who were made to fight. They were not discriminated against because of their gender, but because they were poor. Society in general discriminated not against men, but against poor people and women.
Please try not to paraphrase unless you're prepared to answer the question I asked in the context I was a at pains to make clear.
The poor were discriminated against, which impacted, amongst any others, poor men who were made to fight. They were not discriminated against because of their gender, but because they were poor. Society in general discriminated not against men, but against poor people and women.
Please try not to paraphrase unless you're prepared to answer the question I asked in the context I was a at pains to make clear.
Actually the officers (aristocrats) suffered huge losses in WW1. The entire young, male British aristocracy was basically wiped out.
Original post by offhegoes
In what way were men discriminated against?
And I ask this as in, in what why were men discriminated against aside from soley as a consequence of discrimination based on wealth?
Because whilst plenty of people shorter than 5 foot 7 are being mistreated in ISIS controlled regions, that is purely as a byproduct of the mistreatment of women.
And I ask this as in, in what why were men discriminated against aside from soley as a consequence of discrimination based on wealth?
Because whilst plenty of people shorter than 5 foot 7 are being mistreated in ISIS controlled regions, that is purely as a byproduct of the mistreatment of women.
Was there any connect between your brain and fingers as you typed this?
Original post by offhegoes
Look, let's not be children here...
Do you not see that regardless of how fairly men allocated votes amongst themselves, they did in fact exclude women? To say they discriminated against women AND men is misleading when more accurately they discriminated against women and the poor.
Do you not see that regardless of how fairly men allocated votes amongst themselves, they did in fact exclude women? To say they discriminated against women AND men is misleading when more accurately they discriminated against women and the poor.
But do you not see the point that it wasn't MEN who allocated votes amongst themselves, it was a very very very select group of men who discriminated against all women and pretty much all men.
The point is that it's not men acting as a collective group in this issue of oppression and discrimination, but of the powerful acting as a collective group. It did not benefit your average man that those in power were also men. This is why this notion of an oppressive patriarchy is so lacking, because it doesn't give us the complete picture of historic male privilege, whereby it is in fact rich, powerful, upper class, male privilege.
Original post by ProEurope
Actually the officers (aristocrats) suffered huge losses in WW1. The entire young, male British aristocracy was basically wiped out.
Well, OK. But I think that when most of the posters here are talking about WW1 casualties they are talking about men without the right to vote being shamed or conscripted into the army.
No doubt many of the aristocrats would rather have been elsewhere, and so would most of the soldiers on either side. But this thread is mostly is about inequality, rather than the tragedy of war in general. At least, and it's not a great consolation, these aristocrats or their families would have had at least some kind of say on the running of the country.
Original post by offhegoes
I notice that you have taken the first part of my post and ignored the rest, which clarified that I was disputing the statement made that "men were discriminated against", which you yourself have just repeated.
The poor were discriminated against, which impacted, amongst any others, poor men who were made to fight. They were not discriminated against because of their gender, but because they were poor. Society in general discriminated not against men, but against poor people and women.
Please try not to paraphrase unless you're prepared to answer the question I asked in the context I was a at pains to make clear.
The poor were discriminated against, which impacted, amongst any others, poor men who were made to fight. They were not discriminated against because of their gender, but because they were poor. Society in general discriminated not against men, but against poor people and women.
Please try not to paraphrase unless you're prepared to answer the question I asked in the context I was a at pains to make clear.
Wrong, poor women were not forced to fight in what is arguably the bloodiest and most grotesque war in history. Poor MEN were. It you can't see how that is gender discrimination, then you're either stupid or delusional.
Ignoring the fact entirely that ALL able bodied, single men aged between 18 and 41 were required to be conscripted, not just the poor, ALL men.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by bassbabe
Hmmm maybe it's because men
I'd like to say that "Rich men" gave other men the right.
men aren't some homogeneous group who work together perfectly
Original post by offhegoes
Well, OK. But I think that when most of the posters here are talking about WW1 casualties they are talking about men without the right to vote being shamed or conscripted into the army.
No doubt many of the aristocrats would rather have been elsewhere, and so would most of the soldiers on either side. But this thread is mostly is about inequality, rather than the tragedy of war in general. At least, and it's not a great consolation, these aristocrats or their families would have had at least some kind of say on the running of the country.
No doubt many of the aristocrats would rather have been elsewhere, and so would most of the soldiers on either side. But this thread is mostly is about inequality, rather than the tragedy of war in general. At least, and it's not a great consolation, these aristocrats or their families would have had at least some kind of say on the running of the country.
The two are intertwined. Gender inequality played an absolutely massive role in who suffered the most in that war. It is not disputable as far as I can see that men by far suffered the most in that war.
Original post by minor bun engine
Was there any connect between your brain and fingers as you typed this?
If you can't see the point I'm trying to illustrate, that the discrimination wasn't against men per se but was in fact against the poor, of which roughly half were men... then just say so and I'll try to clarify.
But if instead you're going to be rude about it then I'll instead be inclined to do likewise and point out that you only typed 13 pretty short and simple words yet still managed to get one of them wrong.
Original post by limetang
The two are intertwined. Gender inequality played an absolutely massive role in who suffered the most in that war. It is not disputable as far as I can see that men by far suffered the most in that war.
I've not disputed that. I've disputed the statements made that, in their suffering, men were discriminated against. Women had been barred from joining the army, yet somehow as a consequence of this discrimination, their lack of sacrifice (so-called) is being used to mitigate the centuries of gender inequality.
I doubt anyone will come out and say that that is their intention, but if you look at the general thrust of the posts made across these forums by some of these posters you'll see the connection...
Original post by limetang
Wrong, poor women were not forced to fight in what is arguably the bloodiest and most grotesque war in history. Poor MEN were. It you can't see how that is gender discrimination, then you're either stupid or delusional.
Ignoring the fact entirely that ALL able bodied, single men aged between 18 and 41 were required to be conscripted, not just the poor, ALL men.
Ignoring the fact entirely that ALL able bodied, single men aged between 18 and 41 were required to be conscripted, not just the poor, ALL men.
Yes, in a society that didn't recognise a woman as having any kind of place of the battlefield... If you think that it was gender discrimination then I'm utterly baffled. The sole reason women weren't conscripted was that they were already discounted as being elligible to join the army. Ergo, the conscription was directed as anyone who was considered elligible, ergo this was not gender discrimination which requires it to have been solely based on their gender.
Original post by offhegoes
Women were not allowed to fight. Should we have conscipted women to fight in WW2 so they could "earn" the right to vote?
To be strictly accurate, men did retain sole right to vote, for over half a millenia. Yes it was only some men, but they still had a great deal more control over the matter.
Why do feminists talk much more about women's suffrage? Because the difference in voting right between the genders throughout centuries of UK history is both indicative of and due to inequality between the sexes.
Male suffrage was not a gender issue, it was/is an issue of wealth and privelidge. The centuries of injustice in this regard does not alter the fact that it took even longer for the UK to go from accepting the rights of some men to vote to accepting the rights of any women to vote.
Let me state this clearly: it would be extremely naive to try and sum up history of voting rights in the UK as that of women being given the vote 10 years after men.
To be strictly accurate, men did retain sole right to vote, for over half a millenia. Yes it was only some men, but they still had a great deal more control over the matter.
Why do feminists talk much more about women's suffrage? Because the difference in voting right between the genders throughout centuries of UK history is both indicative of and due to inequality between the sexes.
Male suffrage was not a gender issue, it was/is an issue of wealth and privelidge. The centuries of injustice in this regard does not alter the fact that it took even longer for the UK to go from accepting the rights of some men to vote to accepting the rights of any women to vote.
Let me state this clearly: it would be extremely naive to try and sum up history of voting rights in the UK as that of women being given the vote 10 years after men.
Yes!
Second time today you've made me shout that in my head.
Original post by bottled
I'd like to say that "Rich men" gave other men the right.
men aren't some homogeneous group who work together perfectly
men aren't some homogeneous group who work together perfectly
Because the rest of the men were positively progressive when it came to gender equality? Yes since they couldn't directly give women the right to vote you might consider they innicents in the struggle for universal suffrage, but I think that is a gross oversimplification...
Original post by offhegoes
Because the rest of the men were positively progressive when it came to gender equality? Yes since they couldn't directly give women the right to vote you might consider they innicents in the struggle for universal suffrage, but I think that is a gross oversimplification...
Those who could vote in the house of commons were presumably rich men. yes.
but even then, my point still stands.
to say that "Men gave Men the vote" is an oversimplification, and treats men like some single group, rather than a large group with lots of nuances
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by offhegoes
If you can't see the point I'm trying to illustrate, that the discrimination wasn't against men per se but was in fact against the poor, of which roughly half were men... then just say so and I'll try to clarify.
But if instead you're going to be rude about it then I'll instead be inclined to do likewise and point out that you only typed 13 pretty short and simple words yet still managed to get one of them wrong.
But if instead you're going to be rude about it then I'll instead be inclined to do likewise and point out that you only typed 13 pretty short and simple words yet still managed to get one of them wrong.
Men were forced into war due to their gender, the sole reason they had to fight and die was because they were male, not due to their wealth. This has been pointed out. The loss of freedom men suffered were about a hundred measures worse off than what women of the time suffered, which was not being able to vote for ten years. You are delusional.
Original post by minor bun engine
Men were forced into war due to their gender, the sole reason they had to fight and die was because they were male, not due to their wealth. This has been pointed out. The loss of freedom men suffered were about a hundred measures worse off than what women of the time suffered, which was not being able to vote for ten years. You are delusional.
Yawn.
I feel like I'm restating the same responses endlessly. If you disagree with my premise in stating that men were not discriminated against due to their gender then please clarify why.
Women were already being discriminated against in their not being allowed to join the army. From this position, many of the remaining people elligible, ie. men, were required to fight.
But this conscription was not discrimination against men due to their gender. You can't take the likely single instance in which the descrimination against women conversely gave them a more favourable outcome then men as evidence of men being discriminated against!
Original post by offhegoes
Yawn.
I feel like I'm restating the same responses endlessly. If you disagree with my premise in stating that men were not discriminated against due to their gender then please clarify why.
Women were already being discriminated against in their not being allowed to join the army. From this position, many of the remaining people elligible, ie. men, were required to fight.
But this conscription was not discrimination against men due to their gender. You can't take the likely single instance in which the descrimination against women conversely gave them a more favourable outcome then men as evidence of men being discriminated against!
I feel like I'm restating the same responses endlessly. If you disagree with my premise in stating that men were not discriminated against due to their gender then please clarify why.
Women were already being discriminated against in their not being allowed to join the army. From this position, many of the remaining people elligible, ie. men, were required to fight.
But this conscription was not discrimination against men due to their gender. You can't take the likely single instance in which the descrimination against women conversely gave them a more favourable outcome then men as evidence of men being discriminated against!
Conscription is the absolute ultimate loss of personal freedom, one which often resulted in prolonged and painful death. In no sane person's mind is this discrimination again women - men were forced to give up their lives and women were not - they had it a hundred fold worse than any women's rights activist in history. Take this **** to tumblr.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 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 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 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 ?
