~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
Imnotmrabut
[–]eadala 59 points60 points61 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Gonna be honest with you, I thought this came from r/forwardsfromgrandma. There's no substance or argument here. No evidence of a wrongdoing. Just a historical parliamentary recount with a sassy comment attached. It does nothing for the viewer except make a jaded one go "heh... yeah!" If you'd like to start a discussion of the evolution of feminism in politics, this is an okay place to do it. But this kind of rabblerousing nonsense is... unproductive.
[–]Cloudy_Wealth 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Yea I don't get it
[–]ZenPyx 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I guess she is saying women are superior? I'm not really sure, it does really sound like she is asking for equality with a bit of cheeky banter mixed in there
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Seriously there are too many posts on this sub that are just "This comment was made by a woman! Boo!" like who cares? People on all sides of everything say stupid shit. If it isn't directly tied to resolving the real issues men face, like work place fatalities or inequal custody, how is this helping? Its just belittles us in the eyes of other people.
And for the record its a) its snark from her, and b) its pretty cute, and c) the concept that women "are our better half" was a philosophical idiom created by us men and has been around since Roman times (tho was made popular in the late 16th century). Shes snarkily using our own dumb idiom to point out the irony.
Finally, this women Nancy Astor was the first female Member of Parliament to take her seat. First Female. We should be celebrating her. She didn't do anything that hurt male identity or set up any circumstances that caused the issues we have today. She wanted equality, which is what I thought we wanted too. Unless this sub has just become us hating women now. I don't like this rising trend bullshit going down here.
[–]SantaOrange 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It becomes less cute when you realize that almost every major feminist activist has expressed similar sentiments -- unironically. First wave feminists typically did so in private. For example Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote in her diary that "we are, as a sex, infinitely superior" to men. During the second wave feminists openly expressed supremacist beliefs. For example Germaine Greer stated, “I have a great deal of difficulty with the idea of the ideal man. As far as I’m concerned, men are the product of a damaged gene." And Greer was/is a relatively mild feminist. Many of her sisters had begun literally advocating genocide against men, including the founder of the first gender studies course, Sally Miller Gearhart.
OP's image is indeed ironic, but not in the way you're imagining. It's a perfect representation of feminists: pretending to advocate for "equality" while pursuing a female supremacist agenda.
As for Astor, she's hardly a figure to celebrate. She was a prohibitionist, racist anti-Semite who supported the rise of fascism and was by all accounts a colossal bitch.
Did she pursue "equality" while in office? No.
[–]gersanriv 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah this is the kind of posts that make outsiders believe this sub is just a community of butthurt men. Upvote wisely
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Astor was a Viscountess. She was a privileged aristocrat. She was an American expatriate who married into the aristocracy. She was by all counts an out of touch elite of little note besides simply showing up and having the novelty of not being a man.
She also apparently believed Nazism would "solve the problems associated with Communism and the Jews"
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
But in this corner called England, at this end of the century, there has happened a strange and startling thing. Openly and to all appearance, this ancestral conflict has silently and abruptly ended; one of the two sexes has suddenly surrendered to the other. By the beginning of the twentieth century, within the last few years, the woman has in public surrendered to the man. She has seriously and officially owned that the man has been right all along; that the public house (or Parliament) is really more important than the private house; that politics are not (as woman had always maintained) an excuse for pots of beer, but are a sacred solemnity to which new female worshipers may kneel; that the talkative patriots in the tavern are not only admirable but enviable; that talk is not a waste of time, and therefore (as a consequence, surely) that taverns are not a waste of money. All we men had grown used to our wives and mothers, and grandmothers, and great aunts all pouring a chorus of contempt upon our hobbies of sport, drink and party politics. And now comes Miss Pankhurst with tears in her eyes, owning that all the women were wrong and all the men were right; humbly imploring to be admitted into so much as an outer court, from which she may catch a glimpse of those masculine merits which her erring sisters had so thoughtlessly scorned. Now this development naturally perturbs and even paralyzes us. Males, like females, in the course of that old fight between the public and private house, had indulged in overstatement and extravagance, feeling that they must keep up their end of the see-saw. We told our wives that Parliament had sat late on most essential business; but it never crossed our minds that our wives would believe it. We said that everyone must have a vote in the country; similarly our wives said that no one must have a pipe in the drawing room. In both cases the idea was the same. "It does not matter much, but if you let those things slide there is chaos." We said that Lord Huggins or Mr. Buggins was absolutely necessary to the country. We knew quite well that nothing is necessary to the country except that the men should be men and the women women. We knew this; we thought the women knew it even more clearly; and we thought the women would say it. Suddenly, without warning, the women have begun to say all the nonsense that we ourselves hardly believed when we said it. The solemnity of politics; the necessity of votes; the necessity of Huggins; the necessity of Buggins; all these flow in a pellucid stream from the lips of all the suffragette speakers. I suppose in every fight, however old, one has a vague aspiration to conquer; but we never wanted to conquer women so completely as this. We only expected that they might leave us a little more margin for our nonsense; we never expected that they would accept it seriously as sense. Therefore I am all at sea about the existing situation; I scarcely know whether to be relieved or enraged by this substitution of the feeble platform lecture for the forcible curtain-lecture. I am lost without the trenchant and candid Mrs. Caudle. I really do not know what to do with the prostrate and penitent Miss Pankhurst. This surrender of the modern woman has taken us all so much by surprise that it is desirable to pause a moment, and collect our wits about what she is really saying.
But in this corner called England, at this end of the century, there has happened a strange and startling thing. Openly and to all appearance, this ancestral conflict has silently and abruptly ended; one of the two sexes has suddenly surrendered to the other. By the beginning of the twentieth century, within the last few years, the woman has in public surrendered to the man. She has seriously and officially owned that the man has been right all along; that the public house (or Parliament) is really more important than the private house; that politics are not (as woman had always maintained) an excuse for pots of beer, but are a sacred solemnity to which new female worshipers may kneel; that the talkative patriots in the tavern are not only admirable but enviable; that talk is not a waste of time, and therefore (as a consequence, surely) that taverns are not a waste of money. All we men had grown used to our wives and mothers, and grandmothers, and great aunts all pouring a chorus of contempt upon our hobbies of sport, drink and party politics. And now comes Miss Pankhurst with tears in her eyes, owning that all the women were wrong and all the men were right; humbly imploring to be admitted into so much as an outer court, from which she may catch a glimpse of those masculine merits which her erring sisters had so thoughtlessly scorned.
Now this development naturally perturbs and even paralyzes us. Males, like females, in the course of that old fight between the public and private house, had indulged in overstatement and extravagance, feeling that they must keep up their end of the see-saw. We told our wives that Parliament had sat late on most essential business; but it never crossed our minds that our wives would believe it. We said that everyone must have a vote in the country; similarly our wives said that no one must have a pipe in the drawing room. In both cases the idea was the same. "It does not matter much, but if you let those things slide there is chaos." We said that Lord Huggins or Mr. Buggins was absolutely necessary to the country. We knew quite well that nothing is necessary to the country except that the men should be men and the women women. We knew this; we thought the women knew it even more clearly; and we thought the women would say it. Suddenly, without warning, the women have begun to say all the nonsense that we ourselves hardly believed when we said it. The solemnity of politics; the necessity of votes; the necessity of Huggins; the necessity of Buggins; all these flow in a pellucid stream from the lips of all the suffragette speakers. I suppose in every fight, however old, one has a vague aspiration to conquer; but we never wanted to conquer women so completely as this. We only expected that they might leave us a little more margin for our nonsense; we never expected that they would accept it seriously as sense. Therefore I am all at sea about the existing situation; I scarcely know whether to be relieved or enraged by this substitution of the feeble platform lecture for the forcible curtain-lecture. I am lost without the trenchant and candid Mrs. Caudle. I really do not know what to do with the prostrate and penitent Miss Pankhurst. This surrender of the modern woman has taken us all so much by surprise that it is desirable to pause a moment, and collect our wits about what she is really saying.
G.K. Chesterton
[–]v574v 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
1963 is when the the feminine mystique was published and the movment that stemmed from that book is called the feminist movement.
It's only 2017.
This fails at math and history.
[–]Imnotmrabut[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
See Paul Nathanson; Katherine K. Young (1 June 2015). Replacing Misandry: A Revolutionary History of Men. MQUP. ISBN 978-0-7735-8380-1. - "From Subject to Conscript: The Military Revolution"
© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]eadala 59 points60 points61 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Cloudy_Wealth 8 points9 points10 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ZenPyx 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SantaOrange 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]gersanriv 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]v574v 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Imnotmrabut[S] -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link