Women Could Not Vote And That Was Not 'Oppression'!

[kurtbirk]

Yes, rights - all rights - basicly comes from „Willen zur Macht“. It is granted you from your fellow men, not from anywhere else.

Thanks for a good video.

[mala265]

Hey fidelbogen ....maybe feminists should start protesting for the right NOT to vote...lmao!!! ...it really is a joke...

[fidelbogen]

@mala265 Well, maybe the ones in Australia should protest that. Of course. . I am hearing some mighty ominous things about Australia these days....

[blacktigerpaw1]

If women really were "oppressed" or treated like "garbage", then why is it that we refer to boats, cars, and countries after "she"? The reason why they didn't get the vote first was because governments wanted men to join their armies and work longer hours. They wanted women to get the better deal (naturally), because women were the most important thing in society. To hear people say that they were oppressed is intellectually dishonest. In this case, they are just as bad as conspiracy theorists.

[mala265]

Hello fidelbogen ... I agree...my dear if women were oppressed for not being able to vote ...then why do so many today CHOOSE not to? Do they love being "oppressed"?

Infact voter turnout is so low that some countries like Australia have COMPULSARY voting. It must really piss feminists off to think of all the "work" they did to get women the "right" to vote ...only for it to become a civic duty...lol

[fidelbogen]

@mala265 I know, right? The irony is delicious! ;-)

[mala265]

@fidelbogen  hehehe ... certainly is.

[thecurse23]

@mala265 well, its a fact that women are the majority of voters in the United States. but I still agree 100% with what fidelbogen is saying. oh and with that said... since women are the majority of Voters.. why are there still no Women in power? they like to complain about that a lot! could it be that deep down they know that Women are not cut out for the job? I would say so

[LikeMindedIncident]

Exactly, fast forward to the present. There is no modern day equivalent of 'that' historic inequality. Not in UK, USA, EU and many other places for that matter.

Today fems have overflowing representation, especially locally, even if there are less fems in parliament (UK). E.g., funds are still allocated for women only initiatives and policy forever shaped to prioritise women (e.g., housing).

Demographics are different on local government levels compared to PM's 'question time'.

Great vids.

[strontiumXnitrate]

Hmm feminist tricknology vs. men's technology... interesting.

And yes their material is getting old, I also wish they would just shut the hell up with it. Get some new material girls because your old stuff is kind of stale.

[luckybozo1]

@strontiumXnitrate ...they ran out of lies to tell. Especially now they have to prove it!

[strontiumXnitrate]

See what you did there? took a step or two back, looked at the bigger picture, changed your angle of view from that enforeced upon all of us, added a dash of intellectual/logic ability to analyse things objectively, and WHAM! feminist agenda lays in pieces, bleeding and whimpering on the floor. You and others continue to use your wit to methodically deconstruct feminist arguments, and I am rooting for you guys. I predict feminism will go not with a bang, but with a whimper.

[fidelbogen]

@strontiumXnitrate Thank you for the props. I think what you are describing is also called "thinking outside the box."

[DumblyBrilliant]

Most men in those days did not have the vote either. Feminists however cried only for votes for women, not votes for all. Selfish little bitches then just as now.

[fidelbogen]

@DumblyBrilliant Manhood suffrage (for non-slaves and non-indians) did not exist in the earliest USA, but got established pretty quickly in the early 1800s -- sooner than England and Europe.

But the selective focus of early women's agitators does not surprise me. Very much in line with the 2nd and 3rd wave feminists we know today.

[Dobogio]

@fidelbogen I have a question, from my understanding the early women rights advocates were split between conservative and radical groups. Its fair to the say the radicals won but from my understanding, mens votes were usually tied to conscription or some manner of contribution to society....these early women did not offer such a value nor suggest such a contribution from women in order to be allowed the right to vote. In other words, did these women simply want a right without any obligation?

[fidelbogen]

@Dobogio From what you have described, it sounds like that is exactly what they wanted. I see no other way to explain it.

As for male voting rights -- that was tied to property ownership, a requirement which was relaxed by stages over the years. Afterwards, they might have cited conscription as the "contribution" factor. But I don't know how far (if at all) this entered into legal thinking on the subject.

This sounds like a research paper waiting to be written.

[Dobogio]

@fidelbogen Indeed it is, I personally thinking debunking feminism as its earliest point during the time when people claimed it was"doing right by women"would completely destroy that house of cards. Also random fact, do you that early women rights activist for the most part practiced spritualism...its weird I know but these 2 sisters called the fox sisters introduced it and women rights activist adapted it for their lectures...really strange stuff.

[blacktigerpaw1]

@Dobogio You are correct in your statements and to answer your question: Women wanted rights without the responsibilities that followed them. Meaning, they would be able to do whatever they wanted and men would be forced to follow the rules.

[Dobogio]

@fidelbogen If this is the case, then isn't women being allowed to vote without any expected obligation or responsibility more of a testament to the men of society....cause when you think about it men basically agreed to let women as a collective whole the right to something which men had to pay with for their lives all for the sake of being"fair". Sounds more like women voting much like any female right was once again only possible because of men.

[ScareCrow7272]

I'll say it again.  Lydia Taft - 1756.

[Eincrou]

I don't believe that a man who is unable to vote has been deprived of his essential humanity or his capacity to life, liberty or happiness any more than the man who can vote, but chooses not to.

The system has promoted voting as a religious sacrament because voting is actually very inconsequential. It serves as an illusion of freedom and gives legitimacy to horrid governance. This illusion is stronger the more the public reveres their ability to be a 0.00008% participant in the contest.

[MrBastilleDay]

You never cease to make me smile with delight Fidelbogen sir! Always balanced with passion and objectivism. What is your term? Fire in the belly, ice between the ears?

[fidelbogen]

@MrBastilleDay "Fire in the belly, ice between the ears?"

Yes, that is indeed my term! :~)

[MrBastilleDay]

@fidelbogen And one I have grown fond of calling my own. If that sits well with you.

[fidelbogen]

@MrBastilleDay I forgot to take out a patent on that phrase, so I reckon it is at your disposal. ;~}

[ManSpeakOut]

So men are only allowed to vote if they are willing to take a bullet for their country.

We are only treated as citizens and given the rights as citizens if we are willing to die for our country.

How equal is that?

[fidelbogen]

@ManSpeakOut Oddly, this double standard per the draft doesn't disturb me much. Maybe it should, but it doesn't. The way I see it, if it STAYS in the realm of double standards, then it remains available as a rhetorical weapon against the feminists. So, cloud...meet silver lining! :~)



[fidelbogen]

@ManSpeakOut Also, I don't much like the idea of women in combat. Okay, maybe I have some residual chivalry to get out of my system. After that, will the feminists be happy?

Oh wait, I forgot. Feminism IS chivalry. Chivalry in warp drive; chivalry on steroids.

Fact is, the feminists don't REALLY want women in combat. They'd rather see MEN getting killed, BUT. . it is vital to the "equality" construct that women should have that option available in theory. GI Jane photo ops and so on. . .

[ManSpeakOut]

@fidelbogen I think its necessary for women to fight

Right now its only men paying the price for their freedom with their very lives and women do not

If men must pay this price, women should be the same

You also know whats funny with affirmative action? It tries to enforce that each gender has the same number of people in a profession 50% men and 50% women

but when talking about war and the battlefield, it does not enforce that 50% of the soldiers on the battlefield are women

Cherry picking

[luckybozo1]

@ManSpeakOut I think feminists would want women in combat only because it's not the feminists themselves getting killed and it would serve well for the female gender as a whole. And if even one female soldier dies, hey feminists would make sure the world hears it.

[ManSpeakOut]

@fidelbogen In fact the army (or any profession for that matter where death is a possibility) is the only profession where affirmative action is not enforced and over 75% of soldiers are men.

[ManSpeakOut]

Feminism gave women the right to vote, but at the same time made sure they did not have to bare the responsibility that also came with that right.

If a man wants to vote today, he has to be signed up in selective services, if he refuses, his right to vote is taken away from him. Where are the feminists for this voting discrimination?

Femaquality ftl

[ManSpeakOut]

If women did not have to go out to the battlefield to fight and defend their country because of gender, then our forefathers thought that should be the same reason women should not be able to vote.

Course things changed thanks to feminism.

Women can vote, yet its almost solely men being sent do die defending their country.

Once you gave women the right to vote, you think they would enter the battlefield as well. Guess again

[knowthingman]

most men earned the right to vote either from directly taking part in VIOLENT actions to secure that right with GREAT RISK of personal injury or death, OR because their FATHERS secured this right for them through such action.

women got the right to vote, like most of their other rights. because men GAVE them to them.

this distinction is not unimportant.

[crypter27]

When women vote they vote for socialism!

[fidelbogen]

@crypter27 They don't rightly know what "socialism" is, but they vote for socialistic measures.

[crypter27]

@fidelbogen So true,they may not know what it is but its in they're nature to be socialistic this is why women are easy pawns for the goverment when it comes to power grabs,but it has to be said when you make a deal with goverment. Your making a deal with the devil,the devil will give you what you desire for a price & what the devil doesn't tell you the goodies recieve from Satan will always come with hidden charges & eventually you'll have to pay the devil his due.

[Eugenepwnsyou1]

Agreed 100%. Biggest misconception on planet earth.. If women were oppressed then so were the proletarian men of that era.Shut up about it they wont unfortunately.