481
We did (thelemmy.club)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/witchesvspatriarchy@lemmy.ca
62 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (23 children)

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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago (12 children)

    Office, I didn't take anything. I simply showed the man my revolver and he helpfully opened his wallet and gave me everything inside

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (11 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (10 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    willing to vote

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

    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.

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    You don't have nearly enough ability to make them afraid. You may be able to wield enough violence to save your life from an immediate threat. But not a determined campaign

    As I said before: Afghanistan, Iran.

    You simply do not have the ability to wield violence on a scale that would actually make them afraid enough to give you equal rights--rather than increase their desire to exterminate you and people that believe the way you do--so you need to convince them.

    Gay people got acceptance because they started becoming visible in popular media, people started publicly coming out of the closet, and that humanized gay people. It's easy to hate gay people with they're just a concept; it's much harder to hate gay people when it's your neighbor that's been helping with your backyard BBQ for the last decade. We went from gay people getting fired simply for being gay to marriage equality in less than 30 years. (Yes, Trump et al. are trying to undo that, but at this point support for marriage equality is 68%, and even though it's going down with Republicans, they're still at 40%.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago*

    If you dont have enough violence to inconvenience them, then they have no reason to give a shit. End of conversation. Or rather start of conversation that consists entirely of violence.

    Don't tell me about gay rights. I've talked to some of the folks who won them. The previous generation of us survived a genocide. We rioted and fought for decades. There's a rich history there. Do not erase the history of my people for the convenience of your shit lib lies you queerphobic piece of shit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I'd like to remind everyone that universal men voting rights are not that much older in most countries.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago*

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago* (3 children)

    Giving something at gunpoint isnt really giving it.

    That thing is being taken.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    I think this is the source of our disagreement. In my mind, the word "give" has at most a mild connotation of volition.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    Interesting. So like whats the dividing line between 'being given something' and 'taking something'?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent