TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

The 'White Feather Girls': Feminists who harassed men for not going to war

Interesting-Eye-5464

February 26, 2022
640 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/white-feather-girls-womens-militarism-in-uk/
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title The 'White Feather Girls': Feminists who harassed men for not going to war
Author

Interesting-Eye-5464

Upvotes 640
Comments 67
Date February 26, 2022 7:19 AM UTC
(4 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/t1r3f8/the_white_feather_girls_feminists_who_harassed/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-white-feather-girls-feminists-who-harassed-men.1102861
https://theredarchive.com/post/1102861
Red Pill terms in post
feminismfeminist
Top posts by Interesting-Eye-5464

When you think like a hammer everything is a nail…

950 upvotes
June 13, 2022
/r/AntiFeminists

Where are the men of courage? They’re gone thanks to ‘toxic masculinity’. Is this not what feminism demanded from men?

788 upvotes
June 4, 2022
/r/MensRights

Woman claimed 'innocence by nature of being a woman'. Judge wasn't impressed

772 upvotes
May 2, 2022
/r/MensRights

HERE IT IS!! CONFIRMING ONCE AGAIN FEMINISTS WILL BLAME ANYONE BUT THEMSELVES FOR THEIR OWN POOR BEHAVIOUR: Psychologist Explains Why Amber Heard’s Psychiatric Diagnoses Should Be Discounted

646 upvotes
April 30, 2022
/r/MensRights

Why is this subreddit riddled with feminist trolls, when if any of us try to join or post on theirs we get instantly banned??? BAN FEMINIST TROLLS NOW!!!

411 upvotes
September 16, 2022
/r/AntiFeminists

Do feminists honestly think we won’t notice their contradicting demands?

359 upvotes
June 27, 2022
/r/AntiFeminists

If feminism were truly about gender equality, feminists would happily accept being treated the same way they treat men.

347 upvotes
February 9, 2022
/r/AntiFeminists

What are your thoughts around this? ‘Jordan Peterson sparks outrage after declaring plus-size model 'not beautiful'’

328 upvotes
May 19, 2022
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]AnFGhoster 141 points142 points143 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The pinnacle of this comes from when a man ( George Samson ) was harassed by one of these cunts when he was on his way to receive The Victoria Cross.

[–]Admiralthrawnbar 70 points71 points72 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This is exactly why the practice was discouraged, they would often end up doing it to men who were in the army and were on leave

[–]TyrosineSimp 35 points36 points37 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And it’s effed up that that’s the reason why it stopped

[–]Cotterisms 22 points23 points24 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And to men who signed up and were refused (either though the fact they were more important elsewhere or medical). It led to a lot of suicides and the government started providing tokens to prove they had signed up and to show the white feather ladies

[–]IllustriousPiano7300 52 points53 points54 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

"Male privilege" = forced to war. JFL!

Feminists claim to want equality (equal opportunity for everyone) - which is something everyone should want.

But really they want equal outcomes for a select few things. Like you'll hear companies measure 'equality' by how many women are executives - regardless of their work ethic or skills. Nothing about equal number of garbage collectors, or soldiers. If we built the world on 'equal outcomes' what would be the point in working hard, if you're going to end up the same as everybody else anyway?

Equality should be about equal opportunities, nothing more, forcing men to war is stripping them of their opportunity for a better life.

[–]psychowhippet 190 points191 points192 points 4 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

Old enough to be compelled to die, but too young to vote. But women stay at home to demand that same vote while disparaging these same “boys”for not going to war. it’s somewhat twisted. Equality is missing here not politics. There is no moral argument for the initial rhetoric.

[–]Tank-o-grad 102 points103 points104 points 4 years ago* (31 children) | Copy Link

Old enough to be compelled to die, but too young poor to vote.

The dirty little secret of the feminist narrative of the Representation of the People Act 1918 is that as well as granting the vote for the first time to 8 million women it also granted the vote for the first time to 5 million men. The vast majority of the men killed in WW1 in the British army had no vote in and so no voice in the Parliament that had passed the conscription laws that compelled many of them to be there.

[–]psychowhippet 12 points13 points14 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Isn’t that what I said?

[–]Tank-o-grad 35 points36 points37 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Not quite, by saying too young you implied that there was an age those men could have got to, under the status quo, that would have seen them attain the vote. That isn't true, the required level of wealth at that point gave the vote to only 20% of the male population.

[+]psychowhippet -15 points-14 points-13 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Your’ve completely misunderstood my post. Completely.

[–]Tank-o-grad 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Then clarify

[+]psychowhippet -18 points-17 points-16 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You’re just being an offensive cock womble.

[–]jmcsquared 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And you're now just being a triggered keyboard warrior. Contribute to the dialogue, or go wack off somewhere.

[+]psychowhippet -11 points-10 points-9 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, because I’m not even sure you know what me to clarify. Besides that. Why should I? You’re just being obtuse.

[+]psychowhippet -8 points-7 points-6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I mentioned noting pertaining to that?

[–]Clemicus 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Voting rights came down to property ownership or annual land rental costs. That's mentioned in the Voting Rights Act from back then. So that's why hence poor men

One of the HBR team mentioned a change in realtor tax which was placed on the renters so technically more could vote but I've been unable to find that specific change in the law

[–]Jimmy5772 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

I was unaware of this. Can you explain some more please? Why were these men unable to vote before they went to war? And why did the feminist movement help this? Thanks

[–]bluechair01 32 points33 points34 points 4 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

  1. back then, the vote was restricted to the wealthy elites who owned both land and money, so all policies were passed by the rich. This disallowed common men and women from the vote.

  2. They committed several acts of terrorism such as throwing themselves onto a race horse track and getting trampled to death. The bigger reason was the surviving veterans of WW1 who wanted the heads of the bastards who sent them to that hellhole

[–]Clemicus 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

They committed several acts of terrorism such as throwing themselves onto a race horse track and getting trampled to death. The bigger reason was the surviving veterans of WW1 who wanted the heads of the bastards who sent them to that hellhole

I forget the specifics. There were several women who were imprisoned. Their sentences were reduced. They supposedly wanted to be classified as political prisoners and when that didn't happen they all went on hunger strike. If I'm remembering correctly, they all committed suicide after being force fed

I read it in a Guardian article. I couldn't find the specific one (I found several): https://www.theguardian.com/gnmeducationcentre/emily-davison-derby-coverage-teaching-resource-gnm-archive

The bigger acts were posting explosive devices and blowing up factories (the arguments were they were empty at the time they happened) maybe going back as far as the 1860's. The reason I stated that was, there was a updated Violence Against the Person Act in 1861 (Section 29: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/29 ). Maybe I'm misattributing it, I couldn't think of anything else that would warrant that specific section

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette_bombing_and_arson_campaign

[–]Jimmy5772 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Ok…. So from the above post about the “dirty little seacret of the feminist natative”? What does it have to do with feminists, and why was it a dirty seacret. Thanks for answering btw

[–]Tank-o-grad 29 points30 points31 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The feminist narrative is what you believed, that all men had the vote prior to 1918 and no women did, the dirty secret is threefold in that 1) only a minority of men had the vote, 2) shock horror, even some women already had the vote and 3) the universal franchise was won not by the suffragettes (they probably actually delayed it by their terrorism) or by the suffergeists (who were the ones making the progress undermined by the suffragettes) but by the sacrifice of over 800,000 men killed or missing, and the countless millions maimed or wounded in battlefields across the globe the survivors of whom wanted enfranchisement or revolution so that they would be represented the next time a war declaration was being considered.

This is all just in the UK, the other European states had similar with which I am not as familiar and Russia had its civil war and Balshevik Revolution, the USA also saw democratic reforms in the wake.

[–]Jimmy5772 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Thanks, great explanation . I didnt know any of this until now.

[–]Tank-o-grad 13 points14 points15 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're absolutely welcome, it's often one where the scales start to fall from peoples' eyes, the other one is the gendered legal definition of rape that holds sway in an overwhelming majority of jurisdictions that means there is no way that a woman can be charged with rape no matter what she does.

[–]fegu 14 points15 points16 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It is s dirty little secret also because we were not told about this in school. Growing up we were just taught (usually by female teachers) that women finally gained the vote. No mention of the fact that most men also gained the vote at that time.

[–]bluechair01 16 points17 points18 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Women were never oppressed solely by men when it came to the vote, and they didn't fully win over the right to vote. Their biggest victory and biggest reason to exist are lies

[–]Jimmy5772 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ok. Because it wasn’t just women who were oppressed, it was the working class men too right?

[–]bluechair01 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah

[+]psychowhippet -14 points-13 points-12 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It wasn’t about class for men. 🙄

[–]bluechair01 12 points13 points14 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

really? Did they do it as an expression of their "toxic masculinity" then, wise guy?

[–]Diesel-66 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In the UK it was fully about class.

US started that way with land owners only but changed early on

[+]psychowhippet -12 points-11 points-10 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Your history is very very wrong mate.

[–]bluechair01 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

'Kay

[+]psychowhippet -6 points-5 points-4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When is exactly “back then?”

[+]psychowhippet -8 points-7 points-6 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You literally are making no sense at all. Your argument is vapidly moribund. Down bot me all you like. But you make no sense.

[–]Jimmy5772 16 points17 points18 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I wasn’t arguing, I’m literaly just trying to learn about history….! Thats why Im asking questions. You’re the one not making sense. So keep quiet. 👍🏻

[–]psychowhippet -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because they we legally too young to vote.

[–]psychowhippet -5 points-4 points-3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They were able to vote.

[–]psychowhippet -5 points-4 points-3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Many conscripts were between 16 +

[–]DecimatingDarkDeceit 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Old enough to be compelled to die, but too young to vote.

and too young to drink. I refuse to integrate that when a person turns 17 - 18 they immediately metamorphose throughout maturity as 'presumed' by law

[–]denvercaniac 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"somewhat twisted"

oh, no, this is far past that point.

[–]psychowhippet -5 points-4 points-3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I can’t keep up with the amount of crazy pseudo history here. It’s mental. So far gone I can’t even try and explain it. I’m not even sure I can waste my breath. Wow.

[–]Ok-Ambassador3244 26 points27 points28 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I wish the roles of genders were reversed and I could just look pretty and raise babies

[–]Jayradicalmind 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

lolol the pussy prowers is what its called

[–]rainbow_bro_bot 21 points22 points23 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Feminists: Men who fight are violent

Also feminists: Men who don't fight are cowards

[–]Jayradicalmind 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

also feminists; WE WANT EQUAL RIGHTS!!!!

But we dont wanna be drafted, ill stay in the kitchen!

[–]LettuceBeGrateful 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Toxic masculinity" is society's IT department. People hate it and criticize it until they actually need it.

[–]BuddyUnknown072 13 points14 points15 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Just saw a movie having a scene of this, didn't understand what it was until now

[–]Moist-Ad-4288 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What was the movie name?

[–]to0muchfreetime 12 points13 points14 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It was probably The King's Man.

[–]BuddyUnknown072 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes

[–]erik-the-first 104 points105 points106 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Is there anything more typical for women than to selfishly mock men while living a life of privilege? The only thing women had to worry about in that time was looking good and raising babies and somehow they were complaining that THEY had no rights while men were getting blown up.

[–]IllustriousPiano7300 48 points49 points50 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Women were conned lmfao. Instead of living an easy life at home with the kids, they now have to work, and still raise the kids. The only people that benefitted were the corporations, who doubled their labour force.

[–]Bland-fantasie 13 points14 points15 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

As well, doubling the labour supply necessarily halves wages. So in the 50s, dad could support a family of four, but now it takes both, and with less time spent raising the kids by mom.

Not saying it’s all bad. People need to be free to work. There’s a utopian element to the old days that it would be nice to bring back.

[–]Moonlit2000 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Theoretically, doubling the labour also doubles the output, so goods would be one quarter as expensive and it would take LESS work to support a family. In practice though, any increase in production since 1950 has gone to support the 0.1% and no one else.

[–]Bland-fantasie 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Doubling labor would theoretically halve the cost of goods. And some goods do constantly deflate in price. But the cost can only be reduced by a greater supply of cheaper labor if labor was the only cost that went into goods. Materials and regulatory expenses and overhead count as well.

As well, increases in regulation solve a lot of hazards and problems (like lead paint, asbestos, building codes etc.) but those regulations take legions of bureaucrats to maintain, and that cost is paid in various hidden and obvious ways.

Everyone hates bureaucracy, and it is inefficient and corrupt, but it’s not 100% useless.

[–]Zappaa1142 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well the problem was the rigidity of the role, then, in turn, the complete rejection of the traditional role of women as oppressive. You can attempt to free up women in society while still respecting and appreciating the traditional woman.

[–]CryingMadGirl 39 points40 points41 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You don’t want to die? Shame on you

I don’t want to die? I don’t have to

[–]needs_grammarly 13 points14 points15 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

the lion the witch

[–]HumbleGaijin 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And the audacity of those c**ts.

[–]delocalelectron 27 points28 points29 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Like almost everything in feminism, it was a man's idea, then handed over to the unwitting idiots of the system, who took it up enthusiastically.

[–]DecimatingDarkDeceit 21 points22 points23 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They have shown the fact they [the woman] indeed see the man as expandable canon fodder.

[–]Intergalacticio 21 points22 points23 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

This is probably a useless idea, but those feathers reminded me about the poppies that we wear on Remembrance Day. And that made me think. The appropriate dress code for awareness of International Men’s Day is blue. But nothing about that colour stands out for us in a social setting.

So what if instead of blue we wore a white feather on International Men’s Day?

Be it a broach, quill or any other item of clothing, outwardly showing a white feather as a support for men.

[–]bennybeckler 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Almost like being pressured Because you didn’t drink the Kool-Aid

[–]MrElderwood 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was only thinking of this earlier, watching how some of the women were staying behind in Ukraine, whilst others were fleeing. The latter would def deserve a white feather to my mind.

If you are preaching how women are strong, but you are not making molotovs when your country is invaded, then you can fuck right off!

[–]Zappaa1142 -5 points-4 points-3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Ok are you sure these were feminists? People on this sub seem to consider any womens movement or any women for that matter synonymous with feminism

[–]Interesting-Eye-5464[S] 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I’m going on what the article says

[–]Zappaa1142 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well yeah I guess I commented without reading the article. Oops my bad

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter