Why do we never talk about how men got the right vote?

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.

Let me ask this another way, if women were conscripted against their will to die in their millions while men werent, would you think the women weren't discriminated against by it?

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.

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.

How ****ing dare you? Do you really have the cheek to say that this wasn't REALLY gender discrimination against men, because who they were REALLY discriminating against was women by NOT letting them join the army in the first place. That this immense tragedy that overwhelmingly targeted men, because of a sexist policy with regards to conscription that was unquestionably negative for the MEN it applied to was either NOT an example of gender discrimination, or if it was, was one where women were the real victims.

Has it crossed your mind that gender discrimination might perhaps be more complex than men opressing women, and that perhaps it might affect BOTH men and women.

Oddly, however, women seemed quite content with not being subject to conscription and never campaigned for the privilege (I wonder why?). In fact, many of the suffragettes were quite active in pressuring young men into fighting (men who also didn't have the right to vote, but saw no similar support from the suffragettes on the matter).

Was female suffrage a gender issue? Yes. But regardless, it wasn't because men got the right to vote simply for being men in the years prior, but because they saw that they had the right as tax-paying citizens whom were expected to serve and die in the name of their country. Women, however, were not expected to perform this role, nor did they by enlarge, so it was the husband who cast the ballot.

Despite the significance of men's suffrage, and the fact that it eventually helped pave the way for women's suffrage, it is nearly always forgotten and overshadowed by the more popular and romanticized story of the suffragettes.

So in a society which had long perpetuated the notion that women had no place fighting on the battlefield, you don't see why large numbers of women didn't campaign to be allowed to now?

You seem to be at pains to paint shaming eligible citizens into fighting as a suffragette enterprise, when it was very much a male endeavour too. You also seem to be fixated on the vote as being something that has to be earned be, for example, fighting in a war. Why? The suffragettes were fighting for the right to vote simply based upon the principle that they ought to have equal voting rights to men. I'll assume then that you support the right of 16 year olds to vote then, since they pay taxes and can join the army?

No-one talks about universal male suffrage much firstly because it is simoly a stepping stone towards true universal suffrage and secondly because the name is misleading. Not misleading because any objective person would skew it in this way, but because others, such as you, will use the name to paint it as a male endeavour against injustice unto themselves. It is/was an issue of wealth and privelidge, so rather than being used to deflect attention away from the ongoing efforts towards gender equality it really should be more widely discussed in the context of the injustice along the lines of status and wealth.

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.