MCP wrote:

> http://www.cooltools4men.com/TheVote.htm
>
> By Darren Blacksmith & Julian (julian{at}shopit.net)
>
>
> Enter into an argument with anyone sympathetic to feminism and you'll soon
> hear them fall-back onto the oldest feminist complaint in the book: the
> issue of women being given the vote.
>
> This is usually their refuge argument. The line-of-attack they use when all
> else has failed. The topic that they guarantee you will never be able to
> refute, and therefore will allow them to win.
>
> Not any more.
>
> For example, how long do you think it took women in Britain to get voting
> rights equal to men? A thousand years? Five hundred? Or maybe only 250
> years?
>
> Ten.
>
> It took ten years.
>
> Does that surprise you? It did me, but it really shouldn't do. You see, we
> are so spoon-fed a feminist line of thinking in the media that we are
> brainwashed into swallowing their lies. It's all a distortion of the truth,
> which only works because most of us get all our information from
> television - indoctrinated by feminist propaganda - and we don't know all
> the details of history.
>
> For example, consider these facts about women and the vote that you won't
> have heard about on daytime TV:
>
> Women encouraged a male-bloodbath genocide to get the vote.
> Far from standing for 'equality' between the sexes, the early feminists
> formed organizations in order to shame men into being conscripted for war -
> even when women can't be.
> It actually only took 10 years for women to get equal voting rights as men.
> During the time women got equal voting rights to men, men were still
> shouldering the responsibility for society's most dangerous jobs, paying the
> most taxes, and fighting the wars to protect the country.
> The issue of women not having the vote is always held up as proof that men
> jealously hoarded all the power in society and it took the selfless effort
> of the almost saint-like suffragettes to win this fundamental right for
> women. But the whole argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
>
> For one thing, it neglects the fact that 'the hand that rocks the cradle is
> the hand that rules the world': women's position in control of the household
> and family unit gave them enormous power. As Warren Farrell documents in his
> book "The myth of male power", for all the talk of a man's
home being his
> castle, its always been very much a woman's sphere of power.
>
> And were the suffragettes really the all-important, saint-like people that
> made the difference? Read the real story, not the crap they feed you in the
> media. This is the real story behind how all Ordinary people had to wait for
> the right to vote, and not just women.
>
> 1430-1832
>
> From about 1430 until 1832 the first of the political reform Acts some four
> hundred years, very few people indeed were able to vote. If my instinct is
> correct, in today's terms you would need to have been something like a cash
> millionaire to be able to vote, or, which is more likely an extremely high
> standing in society. We are talking lord of the manor here. Catholics
> weren't able to vote and neither were Jews. Parliament which is nothing like
> it is today was mainly made up of land owners and Vast swathes of the
> country had no representation at all. But as the industrial revolution
> kicked in and word of the French revolution, people were becoming very
> unrestful and wanted change and a voice.
>
> To try and give some perspective imagine trying to bring up a family pre
> industrial revolution. You were more than likely tied to a landowner who
> paid you an amount which barely covered the weekly bills. You were starving!
> Cold! Your teeth would be rotting! You would be covered in lice and all
> sorts of boils and bunions! And if you dared to protest you were likely to
> be hung drawn and quartered.
>
> There isn't really any mention that a woman of great standing was not
> allowed to vote but in the year 1831 and census was conducted and it was
> determined that in 1832 with passing of the first reform act, roughly 2% of
> the whole of the UK population was eligible to vote. The whole system was
> still as corrupt as f*ck and a system where the elite and their womenfolk
> held most people in slavery from the cradle to the grave.
>
> There are many many accounts of mainly men being executed, or transported,
> or killed in riots but eventually after many hundreds of years struggle the
> 1832 Act was passed in Parliament.
>
> 1844-1866
>
> In 1844 women and children under 18, working hours, were limited to 12
> hours.
>
> No such restriction on men.
>
> So which groups of people rights were considered first, Men or women and
> children ?
>
> So much for female oppression eh ?
>
> 1847 and yet another reduction in working hours for women and children, this
> time to 10 hours.
>
> No such restriction on men.
>
> So which groups of people rights were considered second, Men or women and
> children ?
>
> So much for female oppression eh ?
>
> 1867-1914
>
> The 1867 Reform Act gave the vote to about 1,500,000. Roughly 6%.
>
> The 1884 Reform Act added about 6,000,000 voters. Roughly 24%.
>
> I recently went on a date with a woman who announced that for 2 thousand
> years men have oppressed women, to which I retorted, no, for 2 thousand
> years man and women have oppressed men and women and oppressed men have
> fought and sacrificed to liberate women and children first. As an aside -
> why is it that women take as their base-line for the length of time 'men
> have oppressed women' to be 2 thousand years? Did the moment of the birth of
> Christ mark a turning point after which all men went around bashing and
> oppressing women??
>
> 1914-1918
>
> I'm going to skip on now to 1914 and the Great War. To coerce men into the
> war a great idea was thought up by Admiral Charles Fitzgerald (perhaps it
> was his missus who thought it up and should go down as one of those female
> inventions that are sorely lacking). The idea involved women handing out
> white feathers to any man who was able to fight but didn't for whatever
> reason. Women were also encouraged to not form relationships with such
> cowardly men.
>
> With the support of leading writers such as Mary Ward and Emma Orczy, the
> organisation encouraged women to give out white feathers to young men who
> had not joined the British Army.
>
> Baroness Emma Orczy founded the Active Service League, an organisation that
> urged women to sign the pledge to never to be seen in public with any man
> who, being in every way fit and free for service, has refused to respond to
> his country's call.
>
> Some of the leading feminists at the time such as Emmeline Pankhurst,
> Christabel Pankhurst and Annie Kenney played a leading role as speakers at
> meetings to shame young men into the army.

Once again we find that females are the
warmongers - so long as it is the men that
actually have to do the fighting.

I recently posted a piece about how it was women
that started wanton warmongering about 4,000
years ago. AGGY  the lot and prompty
dismissed it in a sentence!

And they say they are the peaceloving ones.
Excuse me while I get a sick bag.

D.

> When this war had finally ended there were some 10,000,000 men dead,
> 21,000,000 wounded and 7,000,000 prisoners or missing.
>
> And look who were some of the main activists in forcing men to die.
>
> 1918-1928
>
> As a reward for there sacrifices, had they lived to 1918 all men over the
> age of 21 were allowed to vote.
>
> And as a reward for the efforts the feminist and women's movement in sending
> so many of our men to their death women over 30 were given the vote.
>
> A typical feminist type response with regard voting rights that if it wasn't
> for Emily Wilding Davison who threw herself under the King's horse, Anmer,
> as it rounded Tattenham Corner women wouldn't have had the vote.
>
> My response to the typical feminist on this issue now, is your forbearers
> helped to commit genocide to get the vote.
>
> Women got the right to vote at 21 in 1928 some 10 years later at the cost of
> 10,000,000 lives and one martyr.
>
> The actual difference was 10 years not a 100 or 2000, but 10.
>
> 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 -
> who had equal voting power - had no such obligation to be sent abroad to be
> possibly slaughtered for their country.
>
> So much for women being the oppressed sex.
>


Oh there is much more to it than that.

I think I'll dig out some stuff that fills in
between 1860 and 1930 and post it later to day.

D.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/21/05 11:59:13 AM ---