First I intent to summarise the last main body post, before responding to my opponent.
Summary so far
*Woman never didn't have the vote in the United Kingdom, where suffaragettes were most active and they gained their first and only martyr. They simply received the right to vote 9 years older than men.
*Men received this right at a younger age as a reward for their sacrafice at war.
Notes: Now I'm not saying that was right or fair. Men and woman should both have been given the vote at the same time. But men and woman should both have been conscripted to war, and men and woman should both have been given workers rights.
*Woman received the same right on the same day, but only those over 30.
*Ten years later, after one martyr, woman were giving the voting right 9 years earlier in their life times. The voting right was no completly equal.
*10,000,000 men; fathers, sons, brothers, lost their lives. They were slaughtered and abused by the thousand. 21,000,000 wounded and 7,000,000 prisoners or missing. Their reward; the vote.
*One feminist became a martyr as she lost her life by accident, after planning to tag a banner to the leg of the kings horse. Her reward: the vote.
Forgive me if I fail to see how that was fair.
But don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying woman shouldn't have got the vote, or even that men should have more voting rights than woman. I just find it disgusting that feminism helped to commit genocide in order the obtain this vote. And while woman were working in the factories in mens absence, they told the authoritys of how they could do a job just as well as men, if not better...
...And no one wondered why then they couldn't go to war?
And its worth baring in mind that ten years after that, from 1939-1945 British men were conscripted to fight in the Second World War, and women Ė who had equal voting power Ė had no such obligation to be sent abroad to be possibly slaughtered for their country.
So much for female oppression
Woman are still oppressed. They are stoned to death in the middle east for disobeying their husband. But does feminism lend a head? No. It would rather stay here where it can point the finger and yell sexual harrasment.
I never ever said there was one sacrafice. I appreciate all of the hard work and years of pain it took for those woman to get equal voting age to men. But there was one martyr. And it was her death that led to the female vote being reorganised to the same age as mens. One Martyr died and woman received the vote. 38,000,000 men were either dead, wounded, missing or prisoners so men could...
Further more, I have always said throughout this debate that they helped to cause genocide in the great war. Never have I said they were fully responsable for evrey life.
The very base of feminism is built on a myth of 2000 years of oppression, when in fact, as I have already proved, woman rights were considored first, second and third. Perhaps feminism shouldn't have exsisted. Perhaps it should've.
So how is that relavent? Well, it proves that woman have never been the oppressed gender, and their rights were actually considored first. So is there a need for feminism now, when there wasn't in the first place?
No, in that post I said exactly what you quoted, that feminism was not about equal rights, but female empowerment. Men have never been suppressed, nor did I ever say that. But I ask again, whose rights were considored first?
The ammendments of the constitution which go over voting (except the one which
gives women the right to vote) say that men are given the rights to vote.
I was reffering to the United Kingdom. Rest assured, I could've used feminism in any country as an example. In Australlia for instance, woman had the vote before the 1900's.
And I think you'll find that USA woman were being given the vote as early as 1869 in differnt states and terrortories(with Wyoming first).
Therefore, no, you haven't debunked my theory on The vote. Because it isn't a theory. What I posted was historic fact. In the UK there was no mention of woman ever not being able to vote, EVER. The requirements had nothing to do with gender. When the vote was installed for common man, it was installed for common woman, but 9 years older. May I remind you that 9 years is two general elections...
...Therefore 38,000,000 men would die, get wounded, or be taken prisoner, or even go missing, so they could vote in 2 general elections before woman.
As already explained, woman are running for governer and senate, even president. In fact Hilary Clinton looks like the next president, if you ask me. But will she make a good president? Does she deserve to be there? Or will she be collecting votes just because shes a woman, like Margret Thatcher?
Firstly, that statement is in no way connected to what I was saying. Did I ever say that? Did I ever even mention the strength of men in this entire debate?
That is absurd! How can I possibly twist a point on to my side, when it's historic proof that woman received workers rights before men? I don't need to twist it on to my side, it's already on my side. It's a hisoric fact that woman and children received workers rights first and second, long before men. And who gave these rights to them? The goverment that was 'oppressing woman for 2000 years'....
How can you say that when this site proves feminism censorship in todays media?
Thats not harsh, thats just lame The female oppresion f the last two thousand years, as I proved, IS a myth.
That concludes my third main body post
Edited by Walken, 05 May 2005 - 05:00 PM.