Apparently, all that time I spent studying history in college and grad school was a complete waste of time. Because once people die, nothing about their lives or the events that happened during their lives matters. At least according to merlin34 in Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit, who recently set forth this cogent argument as to “Why feminists should SHUT THE $^%# UP about women’s suffrage in US/UK.”
The 19th Amendment of the US Constitution was ratified in 1920, before that year’s election. At the time, the voting age was 21. Any woman who was denied the right to vote would have had to have been born before Election Day of 1898. Today, she would be 113+ years old. That means dead.
In the UK, it was in 1928 that women were granted equal voting rights to men, again at the age of 21 (although women over 30 were given the vote 10 years earlier). Any woman denied the right to vote based on sex in the UK would be over 105 years old now. There’s still probably some around, but not a lot, and not for much longer, and they weren’t denied the right to vote for long.
What does this have to do with anything? It means that feminists using the “women weren’t allowed to vote, wah” or “black men got the vote before women of any color” canards should SHUT UP, because the list of those actually denied the right to vote based on sex is rapidly diminishing. In another ten years, none will remain.
Naturally, the comments are also a delight. OThompson says:
You can also tell them that Suffragettes were often domestic terrorists.
AntiFeministMedia adds:
It isnt just feminists though is it, its any woman you get into an argument with.
If its not ‘women wernt allowed to vote’, its ‘rapists get off scott-free’. They ignore the context. When did universal sufferage for men go ahead in the UK? 1918?
Most women are ignorant of most of these issues, but they are happy to just parrot all this stuff because that makes them victims, and so they get privileges they arent really entitled to.
They dont care wether what they are saying is out of date, or that most men didnt recieve the vote untill very recently either, they only care that the female gravy train of victimhood keeps rolling on.
Is the Female Gravy Train of Victimhood anything like Soul Train? Because that would be awesome.
Are you denying that “the establishment” was made of men?
You also know that saying “feminism is unpopular” doesn’t make it true, right?
if any man anywhere was disenfranchised that means feminism is wrong. that’s the gist of it.
A checking spelling and grammer, and a call to mob.
See? You have no arguments here and fall back on mobbing, the absurd and the fallacious. You are just a little gang of uninformed internet bullies.
Out of here.
“Men in general didn’t control who had the vote, men fought the establishment to get the vote and many men supported women getting the vote, which happened a short time afterwards.”
The Seneca Falls Convention, the birthplace of the American suffrage movement, occurred in 1848. The 19th amendment was passed in 1920, after many of the women at Seneca Falls were dead. Yup, that sure is a short time later.
“No, I don’t think the psychiatric profession is diagnosing people based on gender.”
How unsurprising.
We have a flouncer!
Yes, a call to help figure out what it is you’re saying. Such a mob! If you actually used proper rules of grammar this wouldn’t be necessary.
So, Lou, where’s all those facts that ‘prove feminism wrong’? Cause, I haven’t seen a whole lot coming from you, either. Captain Bathrobe has already proven quite easily that your little bit about hysteria isn’t correct. Is that not an argument?
Comfronting Lou with facts=bullying
Lou is outnumbered=Lou is being mobbed
“We have a flouncer!”
Bet he won’t stick the flounce.
Hm, I have to say, I liked the yesterday rant a bit more than this. If only becuase every MRA quote is, at its core, the same old wharrgarrbl (and ’cause David writes better than MRAs). We already have the trolls here to tell us how women are not oppressed at all.
No doy vacuumslayer. Clearly, feminism has clouded not only our minds, but also the minds of the researchers producing those facts, thus keeping us all on the Gravy Train of Perpetual Victimhood or something. Much more fun than a conga line.
AWW… I didn’t even get a chance to join the mob. I’ll have my pitchforks and torches ready next time.
As others have said, I love this r/MR post because it means they can never, ever use the words of any dead feminist EVER AGAIN! There goes half of their material! Maroons.
One thing I would like to ask of MRAs/MGTOWers who say that history/science that disproves their arguments are “biased”: What is it about the historians/scientists that causes them to look at things “the wrong way”?
I mean, they’re hell bent on yelling about a femenist bias conspiracy every time a reputable source disproves them, but that’s only a surface-level argument flying in the face of what’s there. Why not try to prove whats wrong with the Scientific Method if that’s the case? Why not present an argument as to why, say, Howard Zinn is wrong? And if history/science are wrong, how are your statements more accurate and why?
One would think that since MRAs challenge the facts so much that they’re proposing some sort of intellectual revolution not unlike that of Issac Newton or Albert Einstein.
This gravy train could be gravier, I gotta say. Feminism hasn’t actually gotten me out of working or taking care of my house or whatever these guys imagine. Maybe I’m blind to my female privilege, but it’s not like I’m getting sponsored here.
I don’t have time to look them up, but I recall reading about studies that have demonstrated differences in the way identical symptoms in men and women tend to be perceived, and therefore diagnosed, by the mental health profession. I do know that certain mental disorders tend to be disproportionately identified in one gender or the other. When these diagnoses are the result of bias, then both men and women suffer as a result.
The feminist gravy train is reminiscent of the one Rob Ford claimed was going on in Toronto and he was gonna get rid of all the “gravy” to balance budgets… turns out… there is none.. so now he’s cutting libraries -_-
@Captain Bathrobe Well, clinical psychology did have this to say:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2850.1997.tb00104.x/abstract
“Replicated findings include race bias in the differential diagnosis of schizophrenia and psychotic affective disorders, gender bias in the differential diagnosis of histrionic and antisocial personality disorders, race bias and gender bias in the prediction of violence, and social class bias in the referral of clients to psychotherapy.”
However, it’s behind a pay wall so I can’t say how good it is. Clinical Psychology isn’t exactly a quack rag, though, so I’m temped to give it the benefit of the doubt. If my university has a subscription I can give it a look later.
See, Lou is wrong in that very, very special way that makes him even more right. It’s just our ideological bias that keeps us from recognizing this.
Seriously, smug condescension, ignorance, and a heaping scoop of fail seem to make the MRA’s perfect shit sandwich.
Ack. Apparently (and unexpectedly), my VPN isn’t granting me access. Either my university doesn’t have a subscription or my VPN isn’t working. Either way, sorry.
No worries, Nobby. 🙂
“Nobody says women were never oppressed, many point out correctly that it was men at the top and at the bottom and that women were spared worst of the oppression.”
Again with the “no peasant women” argument, sigh.
Also, every measure of wellbeing? You only need to scratch the surface to prove that one wrong, like, you know, look at the poverty rates…
Too bad you’re on opposite sides, or he’d fit right in with the gang here.
I also think David’s been getting lazy lately. He doesn’t even try to argue or disprove things anymore, he just quotes some article and goes “Hey, here’s something an MRA said, isn’t it dumb? lol! here’s a video of kittens”
I think the quoted article fits with what I know of feminist victim mentality. But for the sake of argument, why don’t we ask the ladies here how they, specifically, have felt oppressed/discriminated against in their daily lives? I’m genuinely curious.
It sounds like the MRA’s are the ones who think victimhood is a good thing, if they refer to it as a gravy train. You can be a victim of many things like violent crime, discrimination, automobile accidents, and natural disasters. None of that sounds much like a gravy train. The truth is it sucks to be a victim, because by definition it means bad stuff happened to you. Why do so many MRA’s talk about victimhood as if it’s some great badge of honor to win?
The truth is it sucks to be a victim, because by definition it means bad stuff happened to you. Why do so many MRA’s talk about victimhood as if it’s some great badge of honor to win?
They’re probably referring to the substantial benefits, both spiritual and material, that can be gained from playing the victim.