Feminism

[HAL]

Where did you hear that?

[Wokko]

[David]

That's quite a self-contradictory article that does little to support its own argument. Obviously women's right to vote was passed into law by men, just as Row vs. Wade was adjudicated by a man. But is the writer seriously suggesting that social agitation by suffragettes and their male supporters played no role in achieving this reform? If so, he does very little to back up that claim, apart from a vague argument that protestors were seen as troublemakers. Isn't it ever the case? Also, the growth of suffrage from a select few to all adult members of society is widely acknowledged; what isn't demonstrated is that votes for women would have been inevitable (or, at least, not considerably deferred) without social agitation.

Indeed, it seems pretty obviously true that, had there been almost total ambivalence towards voting rights amongst women, it would have never happened. Rarely is a right granted without being fought for; as a libertarian, I would have thought you'd be the first to acknowledge that.

[Wokko]

Rights are not 'granted' they are only ever taken away.

The right to vote was denied to not only women, but as the article said most of the men who were fighting and dying in Europe. Societal views were changing, and protest movements have a much smaller impact than they'd like to think. Without a broad desire for change, it doesn't happen. Protest is so amazingly ineffective without some kind of force to back it up (like strike action for example).

[pietillidie]

There's just nothing to argue about when you deal with such ridiculously broad history; it's all storytelling, and could all be reduced to economics and then down to psychiatry and geography or genetics and ultimately physics if you want to get serious about it.

But Wokko isn't doing that; he just wants to put these folk in their place because they bother him. Wokko, what bothers you about the feminist story so much? What menacing power have you detected which needs unraveling here?

ISIS I can understand. Pedophilia in Christian churches. Authoritarianism in the former Soviet states. Corrupt and anti-competitive manipulation of the economy. The appalling loss of species. Far right Asian nationalism. The plight of first Australians. The homicide rate of Latino women. The aftermath of the invasion of Iraq. The obscenity of dynastic US politics. Or any number of personal interests we all have, such as TP and her concern for animal cruelty, Stui's significantly justified contempt for unions, David's interest in state surveillance, my hatred of vested interests slowing change, or what have you.

But no, you're going with feminism as something which needs dealing with.

Please tell me what I ought to be worried about here because I'm just not seeing it.

[watt price tully]

^ We've been here before.

[Wokko]

I have a need to find the truth, and when propaganda has won out in the historical narrative I try to follow the thread of truth and pull on it until the facade unravels. The feminist myth and the effect it has on society today is one such propaganda tale.

There are plenty more historical untruths that are widely accepted such as Senator McCarthy and his fight against Communist infiltration. I don't like to just let orthodoxy have its sway.

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

[pietillidie]

[Mugwump]

[watt price tully]

[HAL]

Yes, please tell me.

[HAL]

Still how long? That David is a cool dude.

[swoop42]

The irony of a bunch of men arguing about feminism is hilarious.

[Mugwump]

[think positive]