***
Anonymous 12:10pm said:
"ok there, you may want to watch your words, because by acting as an asswhole you are only lowering yourself to the level of those so called modern feminists. Yes you read this properly, i do mean modern feminism. Unlike you, i am am woman, and like you i despise modern feminism. I have never studies feminism so i can't really say whether there are or aren't different kinds of feminism, but you can't deny the fact that different types of feminism did actually exist throughout modern recent history (100 to 200 years ago). I mean, as much as i despise modern feminists, lets face the fact that the first "feminists', called the suffragettes, did a wonderful work, and eventually did bring the right of vote to women and equality in our western societies. It is the modern feminists that have lost their goals and their minds. We have to be careful here not to mix both, since the first "feminists" did bring equality, the modern feminists destroyed it. There is no more equality, neither for men, neither for women. It is a full blown war where in the end we both lost and still loosing, to the point where we both become slaves to a society runed by by multinational corporations. Think about it, there is no winner, neither women, neither men. We are both suffering from this and refusing to see it.
There is no point, for any man, to lower himself to the level of those modern feminists and act as a bunch of idiots like they do. If you are that bright, fight them in smarter ways, above their level. Be smarter than they are, go ahead in stopping this stupid war and rebuilt an actual equalitarian society. Show those feminists how stupid and wrong they are, through positive action. Do not spit back at them, since it is only proving their point, which we do not want, since we know those feminists are crazy. There is no point in responding the hatered by hatered.
Act in a smart and positive way. Humans can be stupid, good, evil, intelligent, etc, no mater what sex they belong to. yes it may take time, a longer time, or shorter time to achieve these goals, depending on how ell you men use your resources, and yes there are some or many women out there who support you, in the same way some men claim to be feminists. Find them and ask them their opinions, and their support.
Forget anger and revenge. choose love and forgiveness, the only way to fight hatred, yes it may sound idealistic, but agin you can't fight hatered with hatered, if you do not like my propositions, think of something better. good luck, but coose the right path into dealing with this, to you or any male activist."
***
"ok there, you may want to watch your words, because by acting as an asswhole you are only lowering yourself to the level of those so called modern feminists. Yes you read this properly, i do mean modern feminism. Unlike you, i am am woman, and like you i despise modern feminism. I have never studies feminism so i can't really say whether there are or aren't different kinds of feminism, but you can't deny the fact that different types of feminism did actually exist throughout modern recent history (100 to 200 years ago). I mean, as much as i despise modern feminists, lets face the fact that the first "feminists', called the suffragettes, did a wonderful work, and eventually did bring the right of vote to women and equality in our western societies. It is the modern feminists that have lost their goals and their minds. We have to be careful here not to mix both, since the first "feminists" did bring equality, the modern feminists destroyed it. There is no more equality, neither for men, neither for women. It is a full blown war where in the end we both lost and still loosing, to the point where we both become slaves to a society runed by by multinational corporations. Think about it, there is no winner, neither women, neither men. We are both suffering from this and refusing to see it.
There is no point, for any man, to lower himself to the level of those modern feminists and act as a bunch of idiots like they do. If you are that bright, fight them in smarter ways, above their level. Be smarter than they are, go ahead in stopping this stupid war and rebuilt an actual equalitarian society. Show those feminists how stupid and wrong they are, through positive action. Do not spit back at them, since it is only proving their point, which we do not want, since we know those feminists are crazy. There is no point in responding the hatered by hatered.
Act in a smart and positive way. Humans can be stupid, good, evil, intelligent, etc, no mater what sex they belong to. yes it may take time, a longer time, or shorter time to achieve these goals, depending on how ell you men use your resources, and yes there are some or many women out there who support you, in the same way some men claim to be feminists. Find them and ask them their opinions, and their support.
Forget anger and revenge. choose love and forgiveness, the only way to fight hatred, yes it may sound idealistic, but agin you can't fight hatered with hatered, if you do not like my propositions, think of something better. good luck, but coose the right path into dealing with this, to you or any male activist."
***
.
The official reply from No Ma'am:
OK, first of all, there is no point in a woman leaving comments about “asswholeness” and then going on with shaming talk about how men are supposed to behave on-line. The shame tactics immediately employed by women are despicable and annoy many a man. All but the most mangina-fied of men ARE SICK TO DEATH OF IT! Many of the older generation of men floating around online have been opposed to feminism since the 60’s and 70’s, and one thing that is apparent is: Men have been trying to take the high-ground in their dealings with feminism for decades AND IT GETS THEM NOWHERE! If you only knew how many women I have gently discussed issues with, only to get NOWHERE with them in the end. Ultimately, it is becoming painfully evident that women really don’t care about men’s plight and certainly don’t want to bother with such annoying things as “justice.” Women really only get concerned about men when they realize that something a man does or doesn’t do affects women. For the rest, women really just don’t care.
.
An example would be the looming “man tax” that feminism has been pushing with their Marxist agenda. Most women will readily agree with this and think it is a good idea, to even out the wage gap that they so falsely believe in. But, then if you explain to them that “man tax” will lower their husband’s (primary breadwinner) pay, and therefore his wife and children will have less money – then women will be opposed to it. Never does it seem to occur to women that the whole notion of “man-tax” or its partner, affirmative action, are horribly unjust. Nope, the injustice doesn’t bother the ladies… what bothers the ladies is if some action taken against men affects her in some way. This is a theme that is coming out time and time again. Have a look at many of the women that are getting involved in the Father’s Rights Movement. Why are most of them there? Not because they believe men’s rights are being trampled, but rather because they are grandmothers who can’t see their grandkids due to a divorcing wife – or they are a second wife who is complaining that the first wife is draining her family’s resources. It is truly an anomaly to find a woman speaking up for men solely for the sake of justice because 99.9% of the time it is all about her.
.
We men have tried to be nice, we have brought forth good, solid, logical discussions advocating for our cause… and do you know what we get in return… ***crickets chirping***… yeah, 40 years of men being “nice” and trying to take the high ground got them in a worse situation than where they were before.
.
So, anonymous, please stop imposing your self declared sense of female moral authority on men. It is insulting. Just because it bothers you that you, as a woman, are starting to see men treat women the same way that women have been treating men, doesn’t give you any justification for running around and decrying that men cannot fight hatred with hatred. Nope, can’t fight guns with guns, eh? Where were you for the last 40 years when feminists were calling for the steady erosion of men’s rights based on hatred? What did you say when all your girlfriends were sniggering over Bobbit jokes? Do you lecture your lady friends on their blatant display of hatred towards men when they chuckle at men getting raped in prison?
.
You have my permission to impose your moral authority on your female counterparts, but after 40 years of blatant hatred against men, it is really rich for a woman to come here and give a shaming lecture like this. What’s next, are you going to tell the Jews that they should treat Nazis with kindness, because that is the only way? The next time you see a “Take Back the Night” march to end violence against women and children; will you step out and lecture those women for promoting falsities and hatred towards men? If not, then what gives you the moral authority to lecture any man about anything on how they should behave?
.
Hate bounces. Get used to it.
.
Long live MGTOW!
.
As for the different types of feminism throughout the ages, while they may look different to you, let’s make one thing perfectly clear: All feminism, from around 150 years ago to the present, is heavily based in Marxism.
.
Long live MGTOW!
.
As for the different types of feminism throughout the ages, while they may look different to you, let’s make one thing perfectly clear: All feminism, from around 150 years ago to the present, is heavily based in Marxism.
.
This article from Carey Roberts is very revealing of the "good" feminists of old:
.
.
Feminist Subversion of the Gender System - by Carey Roberts
.
In recent years, the battle of the sexes has escalated into a full-fledged gender war. This conflict is playing out in the boardroom, the courtroom , and the bedroom.
.
What is the origin of this feminist assault?
.
And as early as 1886, Eleanor Marx, youngest daughter of Karl, issued this indictment: "Women are the creatures of an organized tyranny of men, as the workers are the creatures of an organized tyranny of idlers."
.
The linkage between socialism and American feminism can be traced back to the earliest years:
.
- Susan B. Anthony held a 1905 meeting with Eugene Debbs, perennial socialist candidate in the US presidential elections. Anthony promised Debbs, "Give us suffrage, and we'll give you socialism." Debbs shot back, "Give us socialism, and we'll give you the vote."
.
- Helen Keller, well-known suffragette and advocate for the blind, became an outspoken member of the socialist party in 1909. She later joined the ultra-radical Industrial Workers of the World. Keller's 45 page FBI file can be found here: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/keller-helen/bio/fbi-file.pdf
.
- Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a member of the Woman's Committee of the New York Socialist Party. In her book, Women and the New Race, Sanger wrote: "no Socialist republic can operate successfully and maintain its ideals unless the practice of birthcontrol is encouraged to a marked and efficient degree."
.
(Rob says: Also follow this link to see what a racist pig Sanger was http://dianedew.com/sanger.htm and here, though be warned, there are pictures of aborted babies on this site: http://www.armyofgod.com/Racism.html )
.
- Mary Inman was an ardent feminist and Communist in the late 1930's and early 1940's. During that era, the Communist Party of the USA often used the phrase "white chauvinism" to refer to racial prejudice. It was Inman who reworked that phrase to coin the term, "male chauvinism."
.
- Simone de Beauvoir was a well-known socialist with Marxist sympathies. In "The Second Sex," she lionized socialism as the ideal for gender relationships: "A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised."
.
(Rob says: here is a link where one can read de Beauvoir's Marxist statement: "Private property appears: master of slaves and of the earth, man becomes the proprietor also of woman....Here we see the emergence of the patriarchal family founded upon private property. In this type of family, woman is subjugated." http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/ch03.htm )
.
- Betty Friedan went to great lengths to cover up the facts of her Communist past: her membership in the Young Communist League, her 1944 request to join the American Communist Party, and her work as a propagandist for Communist-led organizations in the the 1940's.
.
(Rob says: Here is a link to David Horowitz's article "Betty Friedan's Secret Communist Past." http://www.salon.com/col/horo/1999/01/nc_18horo2.html - also, find more on Betty Friedan's Communist connections here: http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/1125roberts.html )
.
- Gloria Steinem once admitted, "When I was in college, it was the McCarthy era, and that made me a Marxist." (Susan Mitchell: Icons, Saints and Divas, 1997, p. 130) Later, Steinem joined the Democratic Socialists of America.
.
These are just a few of the feminists who have devoted their lives to the religion of socialist. The accounts of other socialist women are detailed at the Women and Socialism website: http://www.marxists.org/subject/women/index.htm
.
In her book "Red Feminism," Kate Weigard makes this startling admission: "This book provides evidence to support the belief that at least some Communists regarded the subversion of the gender system as an integral part of the larger fight to overturn capitalism."
.
Subvert the gender system. Emasculate patriarchy. Overturn capitalism.
.
It's amazing that Weigard, a die-hard Communist and feminist, would reveal this destructive plan for all to see.
.
But then, who in the world would ever believe it?
.
---
.
Thank you, Mr Roberts, for illustrating how the "good feminists" of old were nothing more than a bunch of proponents for communism.
.
A very direct link to the beginnings of feminism can be found precisely from the writings of Karl Marx himself, as is evident here
.
In the 1840's, Marx concocted this bizarre theory: Since working men were oppressed by capitalist economies, then women were doubly-victimized by the effects of capitalism and patriarchy.
.
This is how Karl Marx and Frederick Engels explained it in their 1848 Communist Manifesto: "What is the present family based on? On capitalism, the acquisition of private property... The bourgeois sees in his wife nothing but production."
.
In his 1884 book, The Origin of the Family, Engels elaborated on the theme of patriarchal oppression:
.
"The overthrow of mother was the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took control in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children."
.
In fact, the "wage gap" which all the feminists are whinging about can be attributed directly to Karl Marx as well. http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/roberts/03/roberts120903.htm
.
Also, the mirror between modern day feminist goals to that of Vladmir Lennin is clearly illustrated here http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/040116 where we can read:
.
So in 1918, Lenin introduced a new marriage code that outlawed church ceremonies. Lenin opened state-run nurseries, dining halls, laundries and sewing centers. Abortion was legalized in 1920, and divorce was simplified.
.
In a few short years, most of the functions of the family had been expropriated by the state. By 1921, Lenin could brag that "in Soviet Russia, no trace is left of any inequality between men and women under law."
.
But Lenin's dream of gender emancipation soon disolved into a cruel nightmare of social chaos.
.
First, the decline of marriage gave rise to rampant sexual debauchery. Party loyalists complained that comrades were spending too much time in love affairs, so they could not fulfill their revolutionary duties.
.
Not suprisingly, women who were sent out to labor in the fields and factories stopped having babies. In 1917, the average Russian woman had borne six children. By 1991, that number had fallen to two. This fertility free-fall is unprecedented in modern history.
.
But it was the children who were the greatest victims. As a result of the break-up of families, combined with civil war and famine, countless numbers of Russian children found themselves without family or home. Many ended up as common theives or prostitutes.
.
In his recent book, "Perestroika," Mikhail Gorbachev reflected on 70 years of Russian turmoil: "We have discovered that many of our problems -- in children's and young people's behaviour, in our morals, culture and in production -- are partially caused by the weakening of family ties."
.
If you wish to see how Communism honored working women much in the same way that feminists demand we do today, one can read the very words of V.I. Lenin himself, from his 1921 piece "International Working Women's Day" http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/mar/04.htm where he states:
.
But you cannot draw the masses into politics without drawing in the women as well. For under capitalism the female half of the human race is doubly oppressed. The working woman and the peasant woman are oppressed by capital, but over and above that, even in the most democratic of bourgeois republics, they remain, firstly, deprived of some rights because the law does not give them equality with men; and secondly - and this is the main thing - they remain in household bondage, they continue to be "household slaves," for they are overburdened with the drudgery of the most squalid, backbreaking and stultifying toil in the kitchen and the family household.
.
Gee... this sounds familiar, doesn't it? And this is what the "feminists of old" believed in, and this is what modern feminists believe as well.
.
- Easy divorce & little value given to marriage
- Legal & easy abortions
- Destruction of the family
- Destruction of religion
- Wage parity which is not based on performance or qualification
- State Run Daycare (Sound familiar, Canadians?)
- All women should be working
- Women are "oppressed" by patriarchy
.
In fact, even the term "politically correct" comes directly from Communism, as Keith Windschuttle illustrates in his piece "Language Wars." http://www.sydneyline.com/Language%20Wars.htm
.
It originated in the early writings of Vladimir Lenin and evolved as a concept in his work up to 1917. The phrase "politicheskaya pravil'nost'" derived from Lenin's insistence on a rigidly enforced party line on all questions. Lenin argued that only a specifically revolutionary theory would prevent the revolutionary movement from abandoning "the correct path". Before the Russian revolution, to be politically incorrect meant being denounced by Lenin as a "revisionist", "factionalist", "wrecker", and "enemy of the people". After the revolution, to be politically incorrect meant a death warrant. Joseph Stalin used the phrase in the 1920's to destroy his rivals Trotsky and Bukharin.
.
Ah... one might say, but what we have today is not really like the Communism of the past, and in that one would be somewhat correct. "Old" Communism was an act of revolution, but it has now been purposefully morphed into "Cultural Marxism". While I will not heavily get into this aspect of Cultural Marxism, you can read exactly how this transformation was purposefully put to use by reading the following links in regard to the "Frankfurt School":
.
.
To fully understand how "Cultural Marxism" works, one should read this article about how Communist China has used Cultural Marxism to gain and maintain communism.
.
And yes, this Marxist dark side of feminism is alive and well even today. Read this link about Hilary Clinton's past ties to Marxism: http://www.aim.org/aim_report/A5_0_4_0_C/ It is very revealing to see how the future first female US President, a world renown feminist, has her own ties to communism. And to see that Marxism is still alive in Hilary, the great feminist hope, one needs only to look at her proposing of the "Paycheck Fairness Act". http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/050426
.
On April 19 Senator Clinton introduced the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act, a law that would pressure employers to fatten women's paychecks, regardless of the number of hours worked or job qualifications.
.
And of course, after reading the above in regard to how Lenin instituted state run daycares and subverted the patriarchal family with government services... it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what Hilary Clinton is really saying when she states "It takes a village to raise a child", does it?
.
What do you suppose Norway's law to mandate 40% of all company executives be women is? Or how about proposals in Britain & Canada to preferentially short-list women for Member of Parliament positions? Those actions are 100% Communist & Totalitarian!
.
So, as one can evidently see, ALL FEMINISM is based directly in Marxism. Feminism = Marxism, even the "old feminism" from the sufragettes. There is nothing noble about feminism, not even the old feminism.
.
And don't get me wrong, it's not that women shouldn't have the vote, or be allowed to work, or shouldn't be "equal"... but let's get one thing straight here, FEMINISM = COMMUNISM! It always has been about communism, from the very beginning. This is entirely separate from the right to vote or the right to work. One must understand that feminism has been active in historical revisionism, something which is also commonly encouraged by all Marxist states where they believe "the ends justifies the means."
.
There is no such thing as a "good" feminist.
.
Period.
.
Nice time is over, Anonymous, there are no more lovey dovey feelings. That has been tried for 40 years and it has failed miserably. Now is the time to get angry, for another 10 or 20 years may be too late.
.
***************************
.
Well, onto the second Anonymous's comments, shall we?
.
Anonymous 12:45pm said:
.
"Any definition which includes the word "feminism" in it promotes the false belief that women were/are oppressed by men and need to be liberated."
.
Ok, you are right and wrong about this. While you are right to confirm the fact that women were not oppressed, it is only true up to a certain point in time. This may sound nasty, especially that i have no scientific proof on which to rely on but only common sense. Oppression against women did exist. I mean there was oppression of men by men and women by men to some extent. And my point is that this oppression has grown very fast in north america, relatively recently, among european settlers. there is no other place in the world where feminism is as strong as in North america. it is most likely that this oppression you talk about most likely started among extremist christian groups who first emigrated to the Americas. now this is very crude but so true, those extrmists were loosers in old Europe, kicked out, so they came to a new potential world, why, because they were extremists (at least they became so once here) In the same way that Australia used to be a British colonial prison, America is the place where extremist loosers thrived, thirsty for power. So obviously down the road they also started breeding those angry thirsty of power feminists.
mind you, these days, those feminists are found all over the world.
.
So while it is true that even all men did not always had the right to vote, why when this right was allowed to every men wasn't allowed to every women as well? SO i guess this is the moment when the balance between sexes shifted, because even though for the longest time women may have been treated equaly and worshipped to some extent, this decisive moment changed everything.
.
So why, didn't everyone at that moment get the right to vote??? can you answer this question?
.
---
.
The official reply from No Ma'am:
.
OK, first off, this whole vote thing is a red-herring that always gets thrown around. This is a typical bad argument because it takes ONE aspect of life and attempts to portray it as oppression while ignoring the whole picture. And when one steps back and looks at the whole picture, "oppression" disappears quite quickly.
.
Is it just the vote that all of oppression lies on? What about that during the same timeframe MEN passed laws making a 40-hour work week for women out of a humane nature, while men were still working in factories & mines from sun up to sun down? Doesn't that have to be taken into account in the whole oppression argument, or just the vote? How about the men (who had the vote) who looked on from the deck of the sinking Titanic at their wives (who didn't have the vote) who were nice and dry & being rowed away in the last of the lifeboats? Were those women oppressed compared to their vote-empowered husbands? I'll bet the husbands didn't feel very empowered as they gulped in that first breath of icy water into their lungs.
.
This constant harping on the vote as a means of illustrating "oppression" is ridiculous because it takes only one aspect of life and ignores all others, and then to really fuck things up, modern ideology rushes in to pass judgement on old world ideology without bothering to study ALL ASPECTS of old world ideology. Overall, there was a balance, which is why so many women were not interested in feminism back then either. It was a small group of radical harpies, pushing for change, just as is happening today. However, with the use of feminist revisionist herstory, the femnuts have focused only the downsides for women and focused only on the upside for men - while never acknowledging that there were also upsides for women and downsides for men.
.
But... since everyone always harps away about the vote, as if the vote is the ultimate in equality, while men having to do more dangerous labour for more hours and men being forced to die in place of women has apparently nothing to do with a lack of equality in certain male aspects of life... I will address the vote issue that all the harpies are always bursting into tears about.
.
First off, lets understand what we are talking about with "men's right to vote." Feminists make it sound so cut and dried, but it is not; it is very confusing.
.
From Wikipedia: Suffrage dates in the US
.
.
Landless white men: 1856
Non-white men: 1870
Women: 1920
Native Americans: 1924
Adults between 18 and 21: 1971
.
So, let's have a look at just these facts, eh? Sure doesn't look like "Thousands of Years of Oppression" does it? In fact, there are only 64 years between when men had universal suffrage to when women had universal suffrage. 64 years! Also note that 87 years have passed since women got the right to vote. 87 years! So, lets put this into context, WOMEN HAVE BEEN BITCHING AT MEN FOR 36% LONGER OF TIME ABOUT NOT HAVING THE VOTE THAN THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF TIME THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTE!!! Putting up with all of that endless fucking bitching and moaning has got to account for some sort oppression that women have perpetrated against men, dontcha think? Jeez... that's just as bad as being married to a woman!
.
Second, notice that adults between 18 and 21 didn't get to vote until 1971. Now there's some oppression for you. Think about all those boys who died in Vietnam, yet they didn't even have a voice in saying whether the country should be at war or not. Funny how this is never mentioned about "the vote." But, oh, that's right, in our "equal world," women don't get drafted and die fighting senseless wars... and since only WOMEN moan on and on about oppression for 36% longer than the actual so-called "oppression," this injustice is conveniently overlooked by our "equalitarian" lasses. If women had been subjected to the draft and died in Vietnam, I'm sure we'd hear the wailing over that for 87 fucking years too! That would be wailing until the year 2060!
.
.
Here is an interesting piece on what it took for men to get universal suffrage:
.
.
Thomas Dorr
.
A strange sight greeted any resident of Providence, Rhode Island, bold enough to be out on an erie June night in 1842. Two brass cannons stood on College Street, pointing through a dense fog toward the city arsenal. Behind the weapons massed a huge crowd of workers and artisans, ready to march against their own government. It was 60 years after the American Revolution had supposedly established liberty across the United States. And yet, according to the mastermind of this little revolution, tyranny still reigned in Rhode Island.
.
Thomas Dorr, the renegade state legislator who had filled the streets with angry citizens, liked to point out the gap between the nation's ideals and its political practice. The Declaration of Independence declared that "All men are created equal," and demanded that government represent the people's interests. But in order to cast a vote in the new democracy, one had to be white (except in a few Northern states), male (except in New Jersey, where women voted until 1807), and a landowner (nearly everywhere). In some places, that left more than 85% of the adult population out of the political process.
.
Dorr, strangely enough, was not one of those left out. A Harvard University graduate and the son of a wealthy merchant, he made an unlikely revolutionary. But after a majority of landowning, white male voters elected him to the Rhode Island legislature, Dorr decided it was wrong for Rhode Island's poor to be denied the vote.
.
In October 1841, Dorr and voteless delegates from around the state met illegally and drafted a state constitution that gave the vote to all white males over 21. Six months later, two separate elections were held. Landowning voters elected Samuel Ward King as governor, while voters empowered by the "People's Charter" chose Dorr. Rhode Island had split down the middle.
.
- Showdown in the Fog -
.
In June, backed by 3,000 supporters and two stolen cannons, Dorr set out in the fog to disarm what he called the "illegal" government of Governor King. According to one observer, the showdown kept residents up all night "with watchful eyes and aching hearts, to await in the most painful suspense the dread spectacle of our fair city wrapt in flames and her streets deluged with blood."
.
The suspense did not last long. When Dorr's rusty cannons failed to fire, nearly everyone began to drift off, leaving Dorr and 50 of his supporters to drag the artillery back to their headquarters. Faced in the morning by 1,500 armed supporters of the King government, Dorr had to admit defeat. At his trial for treason, he spoke like a true martyr. "The servants of a righteous cause may fail or fall in defence of it," he told the court. "But the truth that it contains is indestructible."
.
Dorr went to prison, won a pardon after two years, and faded from public life. His cause, however, did seem indestructible. States that had not already dropped the property requirement began to do so quickly. Rhode Island held out until 1888. But by the time of the Civil War, nearly every white man in the country - rich or poor, rural or urban - could go to the polls on election day.
.
Well, Good Golly, Gosh Darn! Imagine that! And all that we hear in our feminized education system is about women's heroic struggles in order to get the right to vote! WELL WHAT ABOUT THE MEN? If this isn't a prime example of feminist's historical revisionism, in order to put forth the divide and conquer "oppression" mentality of Marxism, then I don't know what is!
.
Thousands of years of oppression, MY ASS!
.
Here in the Great White North (Canada), women actually had the right to vote before 1867, when we were a British colony, as women who owned property under English common-law were afforded the right to vote, though in some districts, they had to vote by proxy. When Canada became a country, women lost the right to vote for around 50 years, as they began to regain suffrage between 1916 and 1920, though, men did not have universal suffrage either, as can be seen from this piece:
.
.
Only Affluent Men May Vote
.
In the colonies that would later form Canada, only a small part of the population could vote. The privelege was reserved mainly for affluent men. The franchise was generally based on property ownership: to be eligible to vote, an individual had to own property or other assets of a specified value. Paying a certain amount in annual taxes or rent could also qualify an elector. Women were excluded from the right to vote, as were various religious and ethnic groups. In the case of women, however, the exclusion was a matter of convention rather than law.
.
Canada adopted the universal right to vote in 1920 for citizens aged 21 years of age, but with several restrictions. The last restrictions were lifted in 1960.
.
(In case you are wondering what the last restrictions were, it had something to do with poverty - pauper's debts etc - people who reneged on their debts could not vote, and in fact, their debts could be sold - something like that, though don't quote me exactly on that.)
.
So, as we can see, this whole bullshit argument about the vote is just utter nonsense. It has been subjected to revisionist history in order to create a climate of anger towards men by accusing them of "patriarchal oppression" when really no such thing was around. The purpose of this revisionism comes directly from Karl Marx's theories of dividing and conquering by convincing one group that they are oppressed by the other.
.
Feminists have a lot to answer for, and I am not in the mood to hear their fucking shreiking about thousands of years of oppression any longer.
