News1 min ago
Women Against Women's Suffrage
It is pretty obvious why I'm posting this: I'm attempting, perhaps mistakenly, to draw at least some analogy between the debate then, when women were fighting for decades to gain access to what we now see as one of the most basic rights, the right to vote, and the recent resurgence of Civil Rights and BLM protests.
Whether or not that's justified, the history of anti-Suffrage is interesting on its own sake. Perhaps in a sense it's obvious that this was going to happen, but there is something shocking and disheartening all the same about the reaction to women's suffrage protests, and particularly so when it came from other women. The example below, The Ladies' Battle,
written by Molly Seawell, an American author, is but one of countless others. It's so jarring to read some of the passages today. And yet, are they that out of place in modern discourse?
Here's a passage on the effect of the WSPU (the suffragettes who relied on Civil Disobedience), for example:
"... it would be unjust to confound the section of law-abiding and dignified, if mistaken, suffragists with the shrieking and savage mobs that make one shudder at the thought of entrusting them with a vote... The present Government has shown a singular vacillation concerning the frenzied women who rioted for suffrage." (pp63-65)
Here Seawell relies on the deadliest political insult:
"The tendency of women suffrage is inevitably towards Socialism, the State doing everything possible for the individual." (p 71)
Or insults the intelligence or lack of understanding of those who wanted suffrage:
"Opposition to suffrage does not mean that women should not study public affairs, and take an intelligent interest in them... it would broaden their minds, and there would be fewer suffragists." (ibid, p106).
"It is my earnest hope and belief that the sound good sense of American women will defend them from suffrage, and protect... their personal dignity. I belief women suffrage to be an unmixed evil." (p119).
It would be a shame for such a weighty tome to have missed out another key Civil Rights issue, but Seawell does not disappoint:
"it is within the memory of living men that the Government of the United States... violated every principle of constitutional government, of common sense as well as common justice, by placing the ballot [and the same civil rights] in the hands of recently emancipated slaves... only a few generations removed from cannibalism, as to the highest type of the Caucasian race, with a thousand years of civilisation behind it." (pp17-18)
It would be comforting to thinking that Seawell was a lone voice in the debate, but sadly she was not. The book itself provides many examples that purport to demonstrate, if anything, the reverse, and that suffragism was a minority pursuit. And, besides, history up until then was on her side. In the UK we are still not yet 100 years away from the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928, which finally granted women and men equal rights at the Ballot Box. In the US they will celebrate their 100-year anniversary of equal suffrage in a shade over two months.
It is, I think, timely to recall just how difficult it can be to win battles that hindsight would lead us to wonder why they were even fought at all.
https:/
Whether or not that's justified, the history of anti-Suffrage is interesting on its own sake. Perhaps in a sense it's obvious that this was going to happen, but there is something shocking and disheartening all the same about the reaction to women's suffrage protests, and particularly so when it came from other women. The example below, The Ladies' Battle,
written by Molly Seawell, an American author, is but one of countless others. It's so jarring to read some of the passages today. And yet, are they that out of place in modern discourse?
Here's a passage on the effect of the WSPU (the suffragettes who relied on Civil Disobedience), for example:
"... it would be unjust to confound the section of law-abiding and dignified, if mistaken, suffragists with the shrieking and savage mobs that make one shudder at the thought of entrusting them with a vote... The present Government has shown a singular vacillation concerning the frenzied women who rioted for suffrage." (pp63-65)
Here Seawell relies on the deadliest political insult:
"The tendency of women suffrage is inevitably towards Socialism, the State doing everything possible for the individual." (p 71)
Or insults the intelligence or lack of understanding of those who wanted suffrage:
"Opposition to suffrage does not mean that women should not study public affairs, and take an intelligent interest in them... it would broaden their minds, and there would be fewer suffragists." (ibid, p106).
"It is my earnest hope and belief that the sound good sense of American women will defend them from suffrage, and protect... their personal dignity. I belief women suffrage to be an unmixed evil." (p119).
It would be a shame for such a weighty tome to have missed out another key Civil Rights issue, but Seawell does not disappoint:
"it is within the memory of living men that the Government of the United States... violated every principle of constitutional government, of common sense as well as common justice, by placing the ballot [and the same civil rights] in the hands of recently emancipated slaves... only a few generations removed from cannibalism, as to the highest type of the Caucasian race, with a thousand years of civilisation behind it." (pp17-18)
It would be comforting to thinking that Seawell was a lone voice in the debate, but sadly she was not. The book itself provides many examples that purport to demonstrate, if anything, the reverse, and that suffragism was a minority pursuit. And, besides, history up until then was on her side. In the UK we are still not yet 100 years away from the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928, which finally granted women and men equal rights at the Ballot Box. In the US they will celebrate their 100-year anniversary of equal suffrage in a shade over two months.
It is, I think, timely to recall just how difficult it can be to win battles that hindsight would lead us to wonder why they were even fought at all.
https:/
Answers
They have equal rights by law Naomi, but they are not protected from human prejudice. As soon as someone from BAME origins goes public with instanees of racism, the response from a large part of the white population is to disbelieve them. In fact, a lot of those folk doing the disbelief are quite constant in their lack of belief. BAME complain of racism: Lies....
22:27 Tue 23rd Jun 2020
"it's saying fix your own backyard before blowing cash on stuff like the moon landing. " - not what he says though is it?
https:/
Looks like he's moaning about a poor existence, there are poor non black people too! Work hard, get a job, earn more, have a better life.
https:/
Looks like he's moaning about a poor existence, there are poor non black people too! Work hard, get a job, earn more, have a better life.
// The real reason for jims post is because he (and Allen and Mozz) all support the BLM movement. ... To claim BLM is the same as the suffragettes is a real insult to those ladies. //
I don't claim the movements are the same. I claim that there are clear parallels in the way they are being reacted too. And I hope that, even if you disagree with that point, you'll find the book and its perspective interesting. Learning how vociferous the campaign against suffrage was is, after all, a part of our history.
I don't claim the movements are the same. I claim that there are clear parallels in the way they are being reacted too. And I hope that, even if you disagree with that point, you'll find the book and its perspective interesting. Learning how vociferous the campaign against suffrage was is, after all, a part of our history.
//I know that, the US is, even now far more racist than UK. I'm just annoyed at all the accusation in the UK when we are probably one of the most un racist nations.//
Then why bring a 50 year old beat poem into the discussion?
I'm not suggesting that the UK has a problem to rival the US, but there is a racist element in our green and pleasant, and to pretend there isn't just exasperates the problem.
Then why bring a 50 year old beat poem into the discussion?
I'm not suggesting that the UK has a problem to rival the US, but there is a racist element in our green and pleasant, and to pretend there isn't just exasperates the problem.
People in the UK are going to focus on the problems they see here, and try to fix the problems they see here. That's hardly surprising. Even if it's true that the UK is objectively less racist than many countries today, and certainly less racist than it was merely a generation ago, that doesn't change the point. The UK being "less racist" is not the same as the UK being "not racist at all".
But it's also a question of who decides that anyway. There's something slightly jarring about saying that the UK is "probably one of the most un racist nations" from somebody who earlier said that "less [BAME people] have the aptitude [for higher grades]", which is at the very least flirting with negative stereotyping.
But it's also a question of who decides that anyway. There's something slightly jarring about saying that the UK is "probably one of the most un racist nations" from somebody who earlier said that "less [BAME people] have the aptitude [for higher grades]", which is at the very least flirting with negative stereotyping.
By the way, despite YMB's insistence otherwise, I am not "far" left. (Methinks he doth protest too much -- Ed.). I won't deny that I am to the far left on the AB spectrum, but that isn't the same thing at all. From people who would be on the actual left, I have been told to, and I quote, "shut the *** up tory". Go figure.
But another point is that my own politics are, or at least could be, essentially irrelevant. "Read the book" was too blunt but it also means that you don't have to suffer from my interpretation of this. The views expressed in this and many similar works from the period can be seen for themselves, without having to be filtered by somebody with an agenda. But only if you read the book. Dismissing the view and then expressing no interest in doing the research yourself is self-defeating.
But another point is that my own politics are, or at least could be, essentially irrelevant. "Read the book" was too blunt but it also means that you don't have to suffer from my interpretation of this. The views expressed in this and many similar works from the period can be seen for themselves, without having to be filtered by somebody with an agenda. But only if you read the book. Dismissing the view and then expressing no interest in doing the research yourself is self-defeating.
"But it's also a question of who decides that anyway. There's something slightly jarring about saying that the UK is "probably one of the most un racist nations" from somebody who earlier said that "less [BAME people] have the aptitude [for higher grades]", which is at the very least flirting with negative stereotyping. " - but that's a fact, different people have different aptitudes, it's true in all spheres of human endeavour and uncomfortable though it is, certain subjects are poplated by certain racial groups because those groups have the aptitude. It's not racist to realise that.
// ... certain subjects are poplated [sic] by certain racial groups because those groups have the aptitude. It's not racist to realise that. //
It kind of is, though, because firstly the inference doesn't even follow. There are dozens of other potential factors to consider and eliminate first before you throw your hands up and say that "Black people just aren't cut out to be" such-and-such a job. You could ask questions about the job application process, eg is there a bias against one group or another -- or go back further to the education path and see if it's producing equal outcomes, and if not why not.
And, frankly, the idea shouldn't even occur at all. Please tell me which job can possibly have an inherent quality that lends itself to one race or another. Which professions are clearly favourable to Black people, and which are White people better at?
It kind of is, though, because firstly the inference doesn't even follow. There are dozens of other potential factors to consider and eliminate first before you throw your hands up and say that "Black people just aren't cut out to be" such-and-such a job. You could ask questions about the job application process, eg is there a bias against one group or another -- or go back further to the education path and see if it's producing equal outcomes, and if not why not.
And, frankly, the idea shouldn't even occur at all. Please tell me which job can possibly have an inherent quality that lends itself to one race or another. Which professions are clearly favourable to Black people, and which are White people better at?
well 99% of maths grads are non African American, is that racism or just a fact that African Americans do not have the aptitude?
https:/
and before go off on one TCL aptitude and intelligence are not the same thing.
https:/
and before go off on one TCL aptitude and intelligence are not the same thing.
I have a few, but I confess that "Nuclear Physics is a white person's domain" hadn't occurred to me for some reason. Maybe because it's objectively a stupid suggestion.
It may be empirically true that there are fewer black people in the Science subjects, but it would be simplistic and, frankly, racist, to assume that this is all down to them be it because they are making the "wrong" choices, or because they all have chips on their shoulders, or because you're just not going to be as good at science if you have increased melanin levels.
It may be empirically true that there are fewer black people in the Science subjects, but it would be simplistic and, frankly, racist, to assume that this is all down to them be it because they are making the "wrong" choices, or because they all have chips on their shoulders, or because you're just not going to be as good at science if you have increased melanin levels.
What is your view, ttt? I asked aog once and he declined to answer. Are non-whites genuinely less able, or do they not get the same opportunities? Which one?
Stating that laws exist, or denying overt racism, isn't the point. The point is it is so ingrained and mostly unvonscience, that people are treated differently due to race. Your personal experience where you work, isn't relevant, as when you look at the overall stats, there is clearly a disparity still. Why?
Stating that laws exist, or denying overt racism, isn't the point. The point is it is so ingrained and mostly unvonscience, that people are treated differently due to race. Your personal experience where you work, isn't relevant, as when you look at the overall stats, there is clearly a disparity still. Why?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.