@SargentTruu@IIdentifyAs2@angelmetatron0 You haven't described historical fact.
It didn't take women until 1920 to get voting rights, only to make them national. Women were heavily influential in the Temperance movement even when there was no amendment making women's suffrage national.
Try again.
@SargentTruu@IIdentifyAs2@angelmetatron0 Prior to the formation of the United States, voting in the colonies was largely governed by the same standards used in England. However, contrary to popular belief, women were not universally barred from voting.
@SargentTruu@IIdentifyAs2@angelmetatron0 As with the women in England’s 1843 document, American women who voted prior to the 20th century did so under the same terms and conditions faced by men, save for one: Women were not and still are not subject to being drafted into the military in times of war.
@SargentTruu@IIdentifyAs2@angelmetatron0 One interesting example of early female voters prior to universal male suffrage is the colony of New Jersey, where gender was not a factor in voting rights until...
@SargentTruu@IIdentifyAs2@angelmetatron0 ...Democratic-Republican party, which eventually became the Democrat party, took the vote away from Jersey women, minorities, non-citizens, and the poor in 1807 over conflict between their party and federalists.
@SargentTruu@IIdentifyAs2@angelmetatron0 After the 15th amendment was ratified, recognizing black male citizenship and voting rights, southern states passed “grandfather clauses” to roll back their rights, & used Jim Crow laws and poll taxes to get out of recognizing them...
@SargentTruu@IIdentifyAs2@angelmetatron0 This allowed wealthy and middle class white women to vote while many poor and minority men and women were kept away from the polls.
@SargentTruu@IIdentifyAs2@angelmetatron0 In 1876, the supreme court ruled that Native Americans were not citizens as defined by the 14th Amendment, and therefore could not vote. In 1890, they were told they could apply to become naturalized citizens in their own ancestral land.
@SargentTruu@IIdentifyAs2@angelmetatron0 Laws denying citizenship to various Asian immigrants passed in 1882 (the Chinese exception) and 1922 (Japanese immigrants.) In 1919 Native Americans and in 1925 Filipinos were told they could earn citizenship by risking their lives serving in American wars.
@SargentTruu@IIdentifyAs2@angelmetatron0 Asians' voting rights weren't universally recognized until the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952. Native Americans’ right to vote wasn't fully recognized until 1957, 37 years after the 19th Amendment recognized women’s right to vote… 12 years before the first man walked on the moon.
@SargentTruu@IIdentifyAs2@angelmetatron0 It was not until 8 years after Native Americans were recognized, 4 years AFTER the first manned American space flight and 4 years before we put a man on the moon, that the Voting Rights Act passed, protecting the right of all blacks and other minorities to vote.
@SargentTruu@IIdentifyAs2@angelmetatron0 Feminists who paint the history of citizen suffrage in starkly gendered terms do so in either ignorance of or contempt for reality. Western civilization’s growing pains have not been so clearly defined, nor has the weight of feminism’s influence on the evolution of voting rights.
@SargentTruu@IIdentifyAs2@angelmetatron0 It was both separate and tandem fighting by many disenfranchised groups which brought about voting reform in England and the United States, including, but not limited to, women’s rights.
You fail to acknowledge these facts BECAUSE YOU HATE MEN.
@SargentTruu@IIdentifyAs2@angelmetatron0 During the US suffrage movement when minorities were struggling for their voting rights (and many minority men had to risk their lives in war to get them) white suffragettes used bigotry to argue for theirs.
Elizabeth Cady Staton: web.archive.org/web/2017070113…
@SargentTruu@IIdentifyAs2@angelmetatron0 No matter how you shake it down, nastiness and bigotry were a prominent "feature" of the suffragette movement, and feminist claims that women were uniquely oppressed via denial of the franchise are either ignorant, or baldfaced liars and bigots themselves.
@HorfordJ@JohnDavisJDLLM@_EpsilonAlpha In that case, I'd like to propose a business arrangement with you. You put up 100% of the capital, and you take 100% of the legal & financial responsibility. You have to run every decision by me, but I don't have to do the same. You are responsible for 100% of the labor.>
@HorfordJ@JohnDavisJDLLM@_EpsilonAlpha >I have the right to consider tasks I would do for myself whether I was in business with you or not to be my contributions to the business, even if you consider them unnecessary and a waste of time and resources. I can break the contract at any time without facing any >
@HorfordJ@JohnDavisJDLLM@_EpsilonAlpha consequences, and take half of the business plus demand regular payments from you for life when I leave. If you break the contract you are subject to penalties and also a stigma for abandoning your business partner, and I get the entire business plus regular payments from you >
This is what it looks like when someone uses her own delusions of persecution to excuse her prejudices. This is no different than actual white supremacy. "I claim persecution, therefore no disadvantage you face can be acknowledged, much less addressed."
"What is a man's right that doesn't exist?"
Here's an entire list, honey. Read up. reddit.com/r/MensRights/w…
Note: Not everything on it is being treated by the MRM as a reason to pass laws & demand government money, as feminists do.
You claim men have actively taken away our rights... but your only complaint that is even CLOSE to legit is about bodily autonomy, something American males lose AT BIRTH when part of their genitals gets CUT OFF AND SOLD, then used to make women's beauty products.
@Redmoonblade Here goes. This will be a thread.
I'm not religious, but I believe a lot of recognition of human nature was written into the Bible, and much of what's called "prophesy" in it is based on that.
So with that in mind, think about the "mark of the beast" prophesy, but modern.
@Redmoonblade First modern change: It's not a prediction about a devil, but a metaphor for what people with unlimited power would do if they had the ability to "mark" everyone in society approved, or disapproved, to facilitate their control over the population.
@Redmoonblade Imagine it's not a physical mark, but a "mark of approval" by authoritarian ideologues (regressives) with influence in the banking industry. It'll be communicated through either approval or denial of electronic financial transactions.
Boiled down to its essence, with all of the buzzwords removed, and the underlying behavior exposed, feminism is about exploiting women's influence on society as a means to shake men down for cash. That's all it ever was, and that's all it ever will be.
There is no real concern for women in feminism's mainstream, established movement... much less any compassion for men. It is 100%, totally and completely, without significant exception, about money. Feminists seek more power to increase the ways they can shake men down for cash.
That's the reason behind the victim narratives, the reason behind the deliberate bias and bad methodology in their research, the reason they demonize men, and the reason they seek to dominate or eviscerate women who go off the feminist reservation.