Then there's the matter of female suffrage. I really don't see how suggesting women should not have been granted the right to vote is misogyny. It might be motivated by it, but not necessarily so, and treating it as such is akin to criminalizing holocaust denial: it's censorship, pure and simple, and if /r/MR wants to keep calling itself an open space where ideas are not silenced, that attitude has to change. I'll corroborate my claim with the writings of Laura Grace Robins, whose blog contains a whole category devoted to women's suffrage and how it has negatively impacted society. Whether or not you agree with her stance, you cannot claim it arises from hatred of women.
45 comments
You can't put up a serious argument against female suffrage without saying that womens are either inferior, or should not have any rights to start with
I consider both of these as hatred, and I don't accept any of the two as decent arguments
And I don't care about "negative influence", the only thing "negative" woman suffrage has really created is making women real citizens instead of making them some family/husband possesion
I took the liberty of googling this Laura Grace Robins (actually, it's Robbins) person. If she actually made a coherent argument, her entire blog would belong here on FSTDT.
http://unmaskingfeminism.wordpress.com/
"I really don't see how suggesting women should not have been granted the right to vote is misogyny."
"I really don't see how suggesting women should not have been granted the right to vote is misogyny."
Yes, and suggesting that black people shouldn't vote isn't racist.
"it's censorship, pure and simple"
I have to admit, that's a new one. These people really don't grasp that their rights stop where another person's begins, right?
You really don't grasp the concept of sets and subsets, do you?
That said, you are free to speak your mind. Defining a thing is not the same as refuting it through reasoned argument or debate. If what comes out of your mouth defines you as a male chauvinist, misogynist, bigot, or lunatic however, don't expect everybody to like you.
the Athenians had (circumscribed) democracy as it was necessary for the men who would do the fighting to aggree to any significant decisions, a citizens' army cannot easily be run as a conscript one. Thus women were excluded since they didn't fight.
In modern democracies the generality of the male population isn't involved in war, but they still get a vote: the same status exists for women.
And a single woman's view is hardly definitive
Misogyny is not always "hatred," it can also be distrust. Someone who doesn't hate women but distrusts women is still misogynist.
If someone does not trust women to be able to make their own choices in the voting process, then that person is a misogynist, it doesn't matter if that person is a man or a woman.
I agree, because women vote, we all suffer.
Their place is in the kitchen, crankin out yum yums.
lol
This place is too much.
If you can't see the misogyny, then turn it around and say "men" instead of "women". If it still sounds perfectly reasonable to you, then it is probably not misogyny.
"I really don't see how suggesting men should not have been granted the right to vote is misandry."
Well, let's look at all the things that have happened since women got the vote:
Hitler/Pearl Harbor/Holocaust/World War 2
Atomic weapons
Aids
Bande Aceh earthquake and tsunami
Japanese earthquake and tsunami
Justin Bieber
Yep, I'm convinced.
It does, because you're denying women a fundamental right, that is, to make their political thoughts known and participate in government. What if men under 40 were denied the right to vote?
> I really don't see how suggesting women should not have been granted the right to vote is misogyny.
Here's something that the fundamentalists (of all stripes) don't get.
Your idea (that you support the notion that women shouldn't be granted the right to vote) makes you a misogynist.
However, misogyny isn't grounds for censorship. Few things are.
You will, however, be disapproved of, just like the holocaust denialists will be disapproved of, and just like people tend to frown at the hate fundies fling at sexual minorities and people of other faith.
So here's a bit of a truth in mostly monosyllablic words, for your benefit: Just 'cause folks don't put up with your shit don't mean they are cenn-shor-shipp-ping you.
In other words: Freedom of Speech doesn't mean everyone has to approve of what you say. Freedom of Speech means everyone else has the right to exercise their Freedom of Speech by disagreeing with you. Clear enough?
@1472788: Well, that's the theory, but we have no evidence that it actually works out that way in practice. Bear in mind that theWeimar Republic's own proscriptions of hate speech not only proved no obstacle to Nazi ascendancy, but also formed the basis of much Nazi repression of dissent. Moreover, even if a willingness to throw over "enforcement of reality" in favor of free speech absolutism could be conclusively shown to have contributed to the rise of the Nazi Party, its share of the blame would still be insignificant compared to that which could be levied against the Treaty of Versailles, the laissez-faire economic policies that led to the Great Depression (which devalued the mark so thoroughly that German children were allowed to make kites from German marks), the apathyif not outright hostilityof right-wing Germans towards the Weimar Republic, the very real Communist threat (which see the Spartacus uprising) and the general weakness of the Weimar Republic, among other factors. Myself, I think that the Weimar Republic was bound for disaster no matter what, but YMMV.
@#1472788"As for ciminalizing holocaust denial, it's a simple fact of enforcing reality: these events happened and if we ever want to prevent another spree, we need to prevent any attempt at revisionism."
We also need to prevent another large-scale depression, stop people from being frustrated when there are no jobs to seek or homes to live in, and refrain from conjuring up a common phantom enemy, like the Jews.
Damn it, we're doomed, aren't we?
Akin to criminalizing holocaust denial?
Nobody is sending anyone to jail for being a misogynist.
For the 1000th time Criticism=/=Criminalization
"I really don't see how suggesting women should not have been granted the right to vote is misogyny."
And that's why you are a misogynist. Here, let's see how things might look if the situation were reversed:
Men are simply too emotional. They often get into quarrels, start wars and are generally too hot-blooded to be trusted with such a potent political device as the ability to vote. I fail to see how suppressing mens' right to vote is misandry.
I really don't see how suggesting women should not have been granted the right to vote is misogyny.
If you can't see it, then you're a complete fucking moron, and I vote this sentence for the "most stupid comment of the year" award. It's just like the racists who make racist comments and then can't figure out why people think they're racist.
More women voted for Obama, than for Mittens.
I wonder why ...?!
Emmeline Pankhurst would be so proud. Meanwhile, cry more tyk(e)0(IQ)s.
I really don't see how suggesting women should not have been granted the right to vote is misogyny.
Misogyny, like racism, is about actions, not intent. You may believe that blacks should be slaves for their own good, you're still a racist.
Calling you a misogynist is not censorship.
For crying out freaking loud! ATTENTION WORLD: CENSORSHIP IS WHEN YOUR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH IS TAKEN AWAY. Someone criticizing your position is not censorship!
If you are publishing a column, and someone from the government steps in and tells you that the column is illegal and that you are forbidden from publishing it under penalty of imprisonment, THAT is censorship. If someone says that your column is lousy and you're an idiot for writing it, THAT IS NOT CENSORSHIP!
If I could delete two words from our political discourse entirely, they would be "censorship" and "propaganda." They are the two most abused words in the English language.
Then there's the matter of female suffrage. I really don't see how suggesting women should not have been granted the right to vote is misogyny. It might be motivated by it, but not necessarily so,
Like racism, there are no rational reasons for treating women as inferior to men. Women have the same capability for rational thinking as men do. Because of this, suggesting that someone be denied equal legal status based solely on their gender (or ethnicity) is hatred towards that group.
and treating it as such is akin to criminalizing holocaust denial:
To my knowledge, no one has criminalized holocaust denial in the U.S.
it's censorship, pure and simple,
Criticism of an idea is not censorship. It's merely criticism.
and if /r/MR wants to keep calling itself an open space where ideas are not silenced, that attitude has to change.
They're a private forum. They don't have to let you post there.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
