There’s an interesting piece over on Collectors Weekly about those anti-Suffragette postcards I sometimes use to illustrate my posts here. (Thanks to Jezebel for the link; I’m not exactly a regular reader of Collectors Weekly.) Lisa Hix puts the cards in context, offering a sort of mini-history of the suffragette movement in the process, and notes that the cards present some of the often contradictory “arguments” still used against feminism today.
Suffragettes were drawn as conniving coquettes, ugly, mean spinsters or, worse, ugly, mean wives who left their families helpless as they attended town-hall meetings. Scenes of women politicians showed them hatching diabolical plots to undermine and emasculate men further. …
“Married Suffragettes were depicted as nagging wives, that was a common one, and the wife was always big, and the husband tiny and puny,” [historian June] Purvis says. “Or, if they were single, Suffragettes were depicted as very ugly women with big feet, protruding teeth, hair pulled back in a bun, and glasses. They were depicted as quite mannish and unattractive so that no man would want to marry them.”
That all sounds a bit familiar, huh?
Here’s are some classic portrayals of Suffragettes as ugly spinsters:
And one depicting Suffragettes as attractive women using their sexual wiles to control men:
Other postcards depicted Suffragettes as children, often whiny babies:
Manosphere dudes are similarly fond of depicting feminists, and women in general, as flighty, irresponsible children.
For more anti-Suffragette postcards, see:
Catherine H. Palczewski’s Suffrage Postcard Archive
June Purvis’ BBC History slideshow
The Woman Suffrage Memorabilia site
This feature on Brain Pickings
And this giant gallery assembled by the misogynistic antifeminist who calls himself Patriactionary.
Thanks, Mr. Patriactionary, for reminding us how completely backwards you guys are. Not that we really needed reminding.
Seraph: She’s really good about gnawing them down (though it’s one of the more disturbing sounds in the world), she just flips out if humans come near her paws. I keep watch and, if necessary), wait until she’s asleep to trim one or two if they’re bad,but it’s not worth the aggravation, blood loss and scars to try to do it while she’s awake.
Thank goodness for the Suffragettes. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude.
@reymohammed – Oh, that Otis! I think he’s on a one-man mission to be banned from every feminist space on the web. When he was still “welcome” here he mentioned something about rape being used a natural means of coercion. He also said he didn’t believe in democracy, though, so hopefully that will curtail his possible legislative career. He was entertaining at times, but I can’t say that I’m sorry David has him on permanent moderation now.
Where is Otis saying this shit?
I think this still holds. Look at the trolls that come over here: generally one of the first things they say is that feminists are ugly hags, bitter because nobody loves them. It’s an awful, irrational argument and it instantly turns the conversation away from the topic at hand and focuses it on you.
In this case, I guess the idea is that a beautiful woman would be able to attract a husband and thus influence him to vote in her favor while letting him think he’s really in charge. I hate this idea that suggests being the “power behind the throne” is inherently empowering. Most of the time it means that you’re in a subordinate position and so have to be manipulative in order to get anything.
Pillowinhell, I saw him cited at Fundies Say The Darnedest Things today, where he attracted many threats to his physical integrity, in many cases from men. It appears Otis now has his own blog. My guess is that he’ll have his own space in the Big House, as well, in which conclusion many others concurred.
This isn’t the first anti-suffragette art I’ve seen that compared women to non-human animals.
That’s… that’s really fucking offensive and depressing to think about, and I really don’t know what else to say, except that it was no doubt far more offensive and depressing to live through. That, and seeing more of these means it might have been a common comparison that was made at the time.
” Pretty kitties, like pretty ladies, don’t want the vote”. They also know, and learn with their mother’s milk, that voting would do them about as much good as it does for alley cats–or even their fleas.
Pretty women (or even kitties) have far more important things to do with themselves than to vote, to engage in campaigns, or jobholding. The only useful thing that really appealing women ( or kitties) could contribute may be amusement or decoration, and/or nominal “work” as receptionists, go-fers, professional dates and companions for clients and advisors ( or affluent contributors to campaigns), etc which modern women are probably too over-educated for anyhow!,
I just LUV that postcard! cute as a button!
Lol Meller! You have no idea how amusing you sound in light of the fact Obama won AGAIN, and largely because he represents a larger section of the US who sees you’re way of thinking as outdated and useless.
Have fun playing with your china dollies. Cheers!
Meller, don’t you have cancer patients to laugh at and dolls to play with somewhere else?
I wanted to repeat what DKM said back with the genders flipped so he could see how deranged he sounded.
But as I began to type it came out as too creepy… a mixture of hitting on him and threatening him. Paternally squeezing the life out of him.
I couldn’t do it. Just being as creepy as Meller for like two seconds made me feel like garbage.
Meller, My Main Deeply Disturbing Douchehead!
Have you missed me?
I haven’t missed you.
I still remember how loathesome you are.
http://manboobz.com/2012/02/09/alcuin-and-out-or-the-kkk-with-tits/comment-page-8/#comment-123827
Meller, I’m looking for a word to describe the kind of man who is so afraid of criticism or disagreement that he only posts on week-old threads where he hopes he won’t be noticed. Do you prefer “coward” or “chicken”?
(Can someone please explain the doll comments to me? I think it was before my time)
Apparently he has a doll collection and they’re all ‘perfect’ ladies, pretty and feminine and docile. Which wouldn’t be creepy normally, but…
Meller’s doll fixation is … interesting, but it’s his thing and I don’t have a problem with it. I DO have a problem with his desire to force non-consenting women to look like and act like he fantasizes his dolls would if they came to life — decorative, mostly silent, servile. And deserving of the most horrific punishments if they fail to act out his fantasies.
Ick.
Here’s a puppy:
And for a change from puppies and kittens, here are some pretty birdies.
FREE EVAN*!
Yeah, Meller used to make a point of going on onanistic rants about his ‘lovely ladies’ and how he used to dress them up and they were perfect for him and how real women should strive to be more like dolls.
*tries to bleach keyboard*
(*I can’t for the life of me remember the threads, it was about a year ago when I was lurking, but someone once spent a few days posting comments from his dolls and documenting their attempts to escape. It was very funny.)
Also, like Cloudiah, I don’t really give a shit if Meller wants to play with dolls. I give a shit about him threatening women with being murdered, cancer, etc. etc. because they dare to act like human beings and not like frilly little automatons. That is just a big creepy sundae with ick sprinkles on top.
Golden pups are among the cutest things on earth.
And then his dolls started talking!
Meller’s doll thing strikes me as exceedingly passive-aggressive. Like he thinks women naturally want him to fuss over them and baby them and treat them, pretty much, like he treats his dolls, and the reason he makes so much out of it is to try and bully women into acting like he wants them to act by “denying” them his attentions.
Where this all falls apart, of course, is that he thinks the way he treats his dolls (and really, he does sometimes seem not to realize that they are inanimate) is something to be desired, and not really straightjacketing, patriarchal, and downright creepy. But I wasn’t here for his heyday.
Especially since he talks about masturbating to dolls as a substitute for having sex with those intolerable Western women.
No worries, Howard, I’ll do it.
”Sexy cats, like sexy men, don’t want the vote”. They also know, and learn at their father’s knee, that voting would do them about as much good as it does for alley cats–or even their fleas.
Sexy men (or even kitties) have far more important things to do with themselves than to vote, to engage in campaigns, or jobholding. The only useful thing that really appealing men ( or kitties) could contribute may be amusement or decoration, and/or nominal “work” as receptionists, go-fers, professional dates and companions for clients and advisors ( or affluent contributors to campaigns), etc which modern men are probably too over-educated for anyhow.”
@ Falconer
You’ve pretty much got the gist of it as far as Meller is concerned. He honestly seems to believe that these rants of his will hurt our feelings (since as women we desperately want him to love and pet us and give us sparkly little collars with frills on). He hopes that if he posts enough of them all women will become the Stepford CatGirls of his dreams. It really is rather pathetic. I’d feel sorry for him if he wasn’t such an asshole.
*reading the Evan page*
*desire to hug Evan and rescue him rising*
Indeed! My partner and I have just taken on a dogsitting client with a golden puppy. We’re very excited 😀