Andrea “Judgy Bitch” Hardie: Women aren’t xenophobic enough to deserve the vote

@ Snowberry

The people who argue that also forget that most American civilians during WW2 did not want to war with the Axis Powers until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Furthermore, during the Vietnam War, *tons* of men went to college to avoid getting drafted. How do they think the draft was (mostly) suspended?

So, yes, even the Manly Warrior Men often loathe going to war, contrary to MRA/RP popular fantasy.

Shorter Judgy Twit: Women aren’t stupid enough to make the same bad decisions as men have made in the past, therefore they shouldn’t be allowed to vote. If only they were all as idiotic as me, me, ME! Pay attention to MEEEEE, boyzzzzzz!

Heavens, just think what would happen if girls really did rule the world — we’d have peace AND no more conscription (which, BTW, was hugely unpopular here in Canada, and was voted down during World War I, the same time when women began being allowed to vote). And with peace, there’d be no more refugee crises, because no more bombings by men with conflicting ideologies. Meaning, even though immigrants would still be welcome, there’d be no more flood of those from war-torn countries, because no wars to tear said countries.

Gee, it’s like she just can’t think her way through a wet paper bag, innit?

Ah shit, the edit window beat me. I googled and found some errors in what I wrote. Conscription DID pass, sort of. Still, this should be instructive:

On January 1, 1918, the Unionist government began to enforce the Military Service Act. The act caused 404,385 men to be liable for military service, from which 385,510 sought exemption, The Military Service Act was vague and offered many exemptions, and almost all of these men were able to avoid service, even if they had supported conscription. The most violent opposition occurred in Quebec, where anti-war attitudes drawn from French-Canadian nationalism sparked a weekend of rioting between March 28 and April 1, 1918. The disturbances began on the Thursday when Dominion Police detained a French-Canadian man who had failed to present his draft exemption papers. Despite the man’s release, an angry mob of nearly 200 soon descended upon the St. Roch District Police Station where the man had been held. By the following Good Friday evening, an estimated 15,000[dubious – discuss] rioters had ransacked the conscription registration office as well as two pro-conscription newspapers within Quebec City.[13]

This escalation of violence along with rumours of an alleged province-wide uprising prompted Quebec City Mayor Henri Edgar Lavigueur to contact Ottawa and request reinforcements. Alarmed by the two days of rioting, the Borden Government invoked the War Measures Act of 1914, which gave the federal government the power to directly oversee the maintenance of law and order in Quebec City.[13] By the following morning, 780 federal soldiers had been deployed in the city, with an additional 1,000 en route from Ontario and 3,000 from western provinces. Despite their imminent arrival, protracted violence continued into the night of March 30, leading in to a precarious Sunday.[13] The final and bloodiest conflict happened Easter Monday, when crowds once again organized against the military presence in the city, which by then had grown to 1,200 soldiers – all of which came from Ontario. Once armed rioters began to fire on troops from concealed positions, the soldiers were ordered to fire on the crowds, immediately causing them to disperse. Though the actual number of civilian casualties is debated, official reports from that day name five men killed by gunfire. Dozens more were injured. Among the soldiers are 32 recorded injuries that day, with no deaths. Monday, April 1, marked the end of the Easter Riots, which totaled over 150 casualties and $300,000 in damage.[13]

The Easter Riots represent one of the most violent disturbances in Canadian history. This stemmed from a clash between English Canada’s linkage to the British Empire and opposing currents in French-Canadian nationalism, which became exacerbated during war time and ultimately erupted over conscription. Curiously, the event itself is rarely studied as anything other than a footnote to the larger political debate around conscription at the time. However, the severity and swiftness of Ottawa’s response serves to demonstrate their determination to impose conscription and prevent a national crisis. Moreover, the military crackdown which lasted in Quebec until the end of the war resulted in an increase in state power in the wake of growing French-Canadian nationalism.[13]

By the spring of 1918, the government had amended the act so that there were no exemptions, which left many English Canadians opposed as well. Even without exemptions, only about 125,000 men were ever conscripted, and only 25,000 of these were sent to the front. Fortunately for Borden, the war ended within a few months, but the issue left Canadians divided and distrustful of their government. In 1920, Borden retired, and his successor, Arthur Meighen, was defeated in the 1921 election. Conservatives were virtually shut out of Quebec for the next 50 years.

So, in other words: Conservative notions of “patriotism” are less popular than conservatives (big C or small) would like to believe. And it doesn’t matter if you let only “patriotic” women vote. The end result is still a shitshow that’s bound to get your conservative party’s ass kicked for at least a good 50 years after the fact.

Again, though, to understand this would require an ability to think one’s ideology through, something Judgy Andrea is too busy judging to even attempt to do.

No, Mrs. Hardie will not shut up, as she is The Only Smart Women In The World . Clearly we should all bow down to her superior intellect.

Yes, women don’t see the need for a military, except for when they are giving away white feathers to shame men into becoming cannon fodder. Of course! It’s all so clear!

And what a brilliant idea; let’s tie the ability to vote to the ability to be drafted since it will bar almost everyone from voting! Yes, even men in tne US are only eligible for the draft between the ages of 18 and 25 . Sorry to the 90% of men who aren’t between the ages of 18 and 25, you’re not Goldilocks, so no voting for you. How smart!

Anyway, I actually agree with MRAs that women should be registered, but I’ve yet to find a MRA that accurately diagnosises the problem. The draft was to provide for combat roles; it’s a waste of government money to register millions of women that can’t fill combat roles. (Government financial waste– hisssssss). The few times that the military has needed women (for example nurses in WWII), a draft directed towards needed women was only avoided by a surge of female volunteers. The military has *never* directly been against drafting women; it was only against wasting millions registering people it couldn’t use. Now that women can serve in combat, it’s only a matter of time before young women will register as well.

OH! And just to further nail Judgy’s stupidity to the wall, we have this:

By 1941 there were enough volunteers for five overseas divisions. Meanwhile, the Conservatives were pressuring King to advise that the Governor General introduce overseas conscription. In April 1942 a plebiscite was held on the question, “Are you in favour of releasing the Government from any obligations arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service?”

The plebiscite was supported by most English Canadians as well as the banned Communist Party of Canada which established Tim Buck “Yes” Committees to campaign for a yes vote. Across Canada, 64.5% of voters were in favour of conscription, with English Canadians voting 83% in favour. The proposal received hardly any support from French Canadians, especially in Quebec, where anti-conscription groups (including one led by Henri Bourassa, the most vocal opponent of conscription in 1917) convinced 72.9% of voters to oppose the plebiscite.[3] The government then passed Bill 80, repealing the sections of the NRMA that did not allow for overseas conscription. However, many Canadians still did not support immediate conscription; there were a few riots in Montreal, although these were not on the same scale as the 1917 and 1918 riots. Even in Toronto, a strongly pro-conscription region, Conservative Arthur Meighen was defeated in a by-election after promising to help introduce conscription.

And note that these votes happened after women over 21 DID finally have the right to vote, although in Québec this wasn’t the case until 1940, thanks to the efforts of the Catholic Church.

Just a small indicator, really, of how very full of shit she is.

There has to be a name for this phenomenon where Canadians lose sight of the fact that they’re not American. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen this… confusion, I guess is the word. There are those among us who also sometimes think we’re British. It’s the weirdest fucking thing, and it always seems to be conservatives who do it.

The Fog of Conservatism? Pseudomurricanism? Anglostalgia? You’re right — there’s no word for it, but there should be.

And I see I’ve been ninja’d twice!

I know this is kind of a minor thing to seize upon here, but what the hell are “Ethnic Europeans”? Europe isn’t an ethnicity (as two centuries of nationalistic warfare and terrorism should point out), so just use “white people” whenever you want to talk about your dumb racial purity theories. It won’t make you seem any less racist, but it will prevent you from being seen as an ignorant ass by the people you’re claiming to defend.

Female nurses and doctors can be drafted. Do female nurses and doctors get to vote under her rules?

@ Lea

Apparently not, because they’re not charging into a bulletstorm. Even though nurses and doctors get targeted anyway, and that snipers hang back anyway.

@ Tessa

Yes, she is actually making that argument.

Someone argued the same to me recently. I said that ‘if lots of males vote for something unethical like abolishing child support payments, do they lose the right to vote?’

[He argued that it was irrelevant…somehow.]

You know, I can’t even get angry at the shit she writes. She’s an obvious troll who is starved for attention. Her hobby (or full-time “job” even, since she doesn’t seem to do much homemaking anyway) is making inflammatory statements and then basking in the glow of the outrage, plus being patted on the head by men who hate women (but enjoy the vote with no fear whatsoever of finding themselves on the battlefield). She likes to get a rise out of people, like there is a sensory hunger there on the most visceral level. She’s clearly jealous of other women — not only those with better careers and more success, but even those women who have only about as much as her; even women who have less; women who have anything at all. She has a knee-jerk reaction to the sight of happiness, comfort or good humor. Seeing a content woman sends her into a frenzy. She’s got acid flowing in her veins. I can’t say I feel sorry for her, either, but she is a fundamentally broken individual and I can’t imagine engaging her “arguments” seriously, either. It’s like trying to persuade mud on your shoe to … stop being mud.