Suffragette - Feminism, The Movie

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Suffragette - Feminism, The Movie

Suffragette is a rather dull British period piece that just so happens to be about an important and still-relevant social issue.

Read Full Article

AGH! You said the F-word! The comment section is going to turn into a shit storm now, doesn't matter what you said after that, you let the cat out of the bag!

Kind of a shame that the movie seems a bit dry.

erttheking:
AGH! You said the F-word! The comment section is going to turn into a shit storm now, doesn't matter what you said after that, you let the cat out of the bag!

Kind of a shame that the movie seems a bit dry.

Haha! I was thinking the same thing. Brace yourselves...

...

*tumbleweed*

OT: Of course Helena Bonham Carter is in it; she is a little unstickable from British period films. Maybe a cyberpunk dystopia? Space pirate adventure? No, pirates can still be linked back.
I don't know if i can see much more injustice lately, please tell me there is a happy ending, righhhht? LikeDogville, though that really was left until the last minute. It was a tough watch, considering the lack of any set.

So basically this movie is going to be seen mostly by middle-schoolers in history class four years from now?

Man we're going through a drought at the moment.

MarsAtlas:
So basically this movie is going to be seen mostly by middle-schoolers in history class four years from now?

Man we're going through a drought at the moment.

spectre was last week. even if most reviewers hated it it's not exactly drought material

The women she befriends are: Edith (Helena Bonham Carter), Emily (Natalie Press), and Violet (Anne-Marie Duff), among other less important individuals. Of these four, only Emily is a real person, and she's been included because of a sacrifice she made for the cause that caused at least one individual in the cinema to let out a massive gasp.

It is really necessary to try to obfuscate Emily Davison? It's a famous story.

OT: It's a shame so many of these movies are so flat. I want to blame the nature of message movies, where they only have a couple of hours to fit in their message and they can't find space to develop the characters and place things in context, but there are so many good examples that I have to acknowledge that it's the writers who turn it into a long Heritage Minutes scene.

MarsAtlas:
So basically this movie is going to be seen mostly by middle-schoolers in history class four years from now?

Man we're going through a drought at the moment.

Pffft, are you kidding? Considering this day and age we're in, the subject matter alone means this is going to win at least one Oscar. :P

OT: I think it might have been Jimmy Kimmel back in the days of The Man Show, but I recall some comedian talk-show host going around New York City with a petition to "End Women's Suffrage" to prove a point that no one even knows what "Women's Suffrage" even means. Sure enough, the overwhelming majority of random jackasses on the street happily signed the petition, thinking they were standing up for women's rights by doing so. :P

RJ 17:
OT: I think it might have been Jimmy Kimmel back in the days of The Man Show, but I recall some comedian talk-show host going around New York City with a petition to "End Women's Suffrage" to prove a point that no one even knows what "Women's Suffrage" even means. Sure enough, the overwhelming majority of random jackasses on the street happily signed the petition, thinking they were standing up for women's rights by doing so. :P

No, the funniest part of it was the majority of signatories were women and almost the entirety of them called themselves feminists in some manner.

Thunderous Cacophony:

The women she befriends are: Edith (Helena Bonham Carter), Emily (Natalie Press), and Violet (Anne-Marie Duff), among other less important individuals. Of these four, only Emily is a real person, and she's been included because of a sacrifice she made for the cause that caused at least one individual in the cinema to let out a massive gasp.

It is really necessary to try to obfuscate Emily Davison? It's a famous story.

In the UK, perhaps. Not that most Americans could name many American suffragettes or have much knowledge of the movement outside of "that happened". Don't underestimate how little your average American knows about history.

OT: It's a shame so many of these movies are so flat. I want to blame the nature of message movies, where they only have a couple of hours to fit in their message and they can't find space to develop the characters and place things in context, but there are so many good examples that I have to acknowledge that it's the writers who turn it into a long Heritage Minutes scene.

It's very difficult to both inform and entertain. Most of these movies want to inform first and foremost. Other movies, like Lincoln or Selma for example, make telling a compelling, personal, grounded story first and if you learn something along the way, it's incidental. It helps if you focus on one event over a short period of time rather than many over a large period of time. Even Selma had some awkward scenes where it pulled away from the main compelling narrative so the characters can explain Jim Crow laws for all the kids watching it in history class.

It seems like Sufragette may have tried to tell a real narrative, but it wasn't super successful because it may have tried to do too much.

So did they feel it necessary to tackle the white feather movement?
I mean according to the synopses of this she did work with that rather unsightly Pankhurst, how very openly supported and worked for the movement, along with a great many suffragettes, radical nationalists and frankly arseholes.
come to think of it the matter of ww1 was rather important for the cause of woman's suffrage.
The causalities that it brought from what I hard being one of the reasons they expanded it, i think they threw in the matter of allowing men who were in the lower age ranges of conscription the vote too but I don't believe so.
It would have helped liven things up if that was the case.
Also I find it odd that they preface it with the man runs everything.
Not sure how that works, form what my older relatives have led me to believe Anglo households have the woman running things, to the point that we always address the family by the matriarch as the central head. and this goes back a while. But we were also farmer stock, she's one of the run down, cityfolk.

Also as an aside do the police officers really end up beating them during one of the earlier scenes?
Was that a thing, i mean bully for the cops but I distinctly remember the temperance movement being unopposed when they would destroy private property, I mean maybe it's an British verses America thing but it seems weird.
Perfectly reasonable for the cops to beat up rioters for the day, just from what I know not women

erttheking:
AGH! You said the F-word! The comment section is going to turn into a shit storm now, doesn't matter what you said after that, you let the cat out of the bag!

Kind of a shame that the movie seems a bit dry.

If you want to see those kind of comments and threads the imdb forum for the movie is rife with them.

I'll admit this makes it sound better then I thought it would be given how poorly even feminists have been acting towards the movie.

I always did find it hilarious some people where under the impression the Suffragettes had some sort of noteworthy sacrifice done for their cause, given how only one of them died (by accident in an act worthy of a Darwin Award) in a time where a few factory workers being killed for trying to form a union. I guess it's the typical mysticism we add to events that are well documented, much as the Boston Massacre had a whopping 6 people die in it yet it was seen as some massive atrocity.

EDIT: an interesting video on the matter.

Does it have that woman that runs in front of the kings horse in it?

Also apparently I remember stuff from History class.

Zontar:
-Snip-

A double post only because the way Escapist works you wont see my quote if I don't.

Is the tl'dr of that video "The suffragette movement happened, then WW1 happened, so it was put on hold as woman came to work in factories and then the country realised that women could actually pull their weight due to their massive input in WW1"?

Pluvia:

Is the tl'dr of that video "The suffragette movement happened, then WW1 happened, so it was put on hold as woman came to work in factories and then the country realised that women could actually pull their weight due to their massive input in WW1"?

No, the TL;DR of the video is a basic history of the White Feather campaign and how many soldiers where shamed by it, and that at the time of the war a full half of those fighting in the British Army where ineligible to vote.

Zontar:

Pluvia:

Is the tl'dr of that video "The suffragette movement happened, then WW1 happened, so it was put on hold as woman came to work in factories and then the country realised that women could actually pull their weight due to their massive input in WW1"?

No, the TL;DR of the video is a basic history of the White Feather campaign and how many soldiers where shamed by it, and that at the time of the war a full half of those fighting in the British Army where ineligible to vote.

The comments on the video seem to suggest this was a feminism thing but a quick check shows it was started by a far-Right nationalist Admiral which quickly gained support throughout the empire.

I don't see the relevance of not being able to vote though.

Pluvia:

The comments on the video seem to suggest this was a feminism thing but a quick check shows it was started by a far-Right nationalist Admiral which quickly gained support throughout the empire.

Just because a far right nationalist comes up with an idea doesn't change the fact it was far left feminists who accepted and implemented it, though you'd know that if you actually watched the video.

I don't see the relevance of not being able to vote though.

Yes, a movement of people trying to get their group to be able to vote shaming another group into going off the fight and die in a pointless conflict on the pretext that their right to vote means they have responsibility to society despite most of them not in fact having the right to vote has no relevance.

Zontar:
Just because a far right nationalist comes up with an idea doesn't change the fact it was far left feminists who accepted and implemented it, though you'd know that if you actually watched the video.

It was the entire empire. Nice try on the historical revisionism to try and fit your narrative though.

Yes, a movement of people trying to get their group to be able to vote shaming another group into going off the fight and die in a pointless conflict on the pretext that their right to vote means they have responsibility to society despite most of them not in fact having the right to vote has no relevance.

It was the empire that got people to fight in the war, not feminism.

Of all the things I thought I'd hear feminism blamed for, it wasn't WW1. I honest to god laughed out loud by how bizarre that was, I mean my god. I mean this is like blaming feminism for the Nazi's. I wish that was a hyperbole.

Pluvia:

It was the entire empire. Nice try on the historical revisionism to try and fit your narrative though.

I don't see how it being adopted throughout the empire changes the fact the far right and far left worked togther on it, with the far right conceiving it and the far left implementing it.

It was the empire that got people to fight in the war, not feminism.

I didn't realize Suffragettes where not feminists.

Of all the things I thought I'd hear feminism blamed for, it wasn't WW1. I honest to god laughed out loud by how bizarre that was, I mean my god. I mean this is like blaming feminism for the Nazi's. I wish that was a hyperbole.

Good think literally no one is blaming feminism for WW1 then, because no one at all on any side of the argument here has stated or even implied that except for yourself.

Zontar:
I don't see how it being adopted throughout the empire changes the fact the far right and far left worked togther on it, with the far right conceiving it and the far left implementing it.

The empire wasn't far-Left. Nice try on the historical revisionism to try and fit your narrative though.

I didn't realize Suffragettes where not feminists.

Hohoho. I didn't realise the suffragettes were responsible for WW1 or who fought in it. Thanks for the laugh though.

Good think literally no one is blaming feminism for WW1 then, because no one at all on any side of the argument here has stated or even implied that except for yourself.

"I'll backtrack and hope no one notices stuff like this":

It was the empire that got people to fight in the war, not feminism.

I didn't realize Suffragettes where not feminists.

This is pure gold though. Feminists responsible for WW1. I'm actually loving this.

Pluvia:

The empire wasn't far-Left. Nice try on the historical revisionism to try and fit your narrative though.

And nice try on you for attempting to make it seem like that was what I was implying, even though it was explicitly stated to be the suffragettes that I was referring too and no one else.

Hohoho. I didn't realise the suffragettes were responsible for WW1 or who fought in it. Thanks for the laugh though.

Literally nothing I stated implied that in any way, shape or form. I could not possibly have been any more clear or explicit on the fact that I was not blaming WW1 on feminism, but the suffragettes, who WHERE feminists, where the driving force of the White Feather movement.

Nice try on trying (and failing) to make it seem like I was saying something else however.

Good think literally no one is blaming feminism for WW1 then, because no one at all on any side of the argument here has stated or even implied that except for yourself.

"I'll backtrack and hope no one notices stuff like this":

It was the empire that got people to fight in the war, not feminism.

I didn't realize Suffragettes where not feminists.

This is pure gold though. Feminists responsible for WW1. I'm actually loving this.

I think you should take a moment to read over what you just posted, because you're conflating "responsible for the war" with "got people to fight in the war", two massively different things. Until conscription was made into law, the state did not directly get people to go off and fight unless they volunteered, however the White Feather campaign, a predominantly feminist movement, played a massive role in shaming men into going off to fight and die.

You may try and deny history and twist my words to mean things I did not state, but the fact remains the suffragettes where feminists, and they where the driving force for recruitment before conscription. They aren't responsible for starting the war, at no point did anyone other then you ever imply or state that, but they where responsible for trying to get men to go off and fight and die for Empire.

I think it would help, in the future, to actually watch the video in question before getting into an argument about it. If you can't do that it's hard to have a proper discussion about the topic brought up in the video in question.

On The Blast:

It's not far from what has been said or implied.

Actually it was, to the point one could not rationally come to the conclusion that it was what I was saying. I also fail to see how what someone else said in another thread has to do with what I said, especially given it's on a completely different topic (unless the nebulous connection between first, second and third wave feminism that modern feminists love to claim doesn't exist is enough to connect the issue of the White Feather campaign to the relation between feminism and minorities, though I'd say they're separate enough to be non-issues to one another).

Zontar:

Pluvia:

The empire wasn't far-Left. Nice try on the historical revisionism to try and fit your narrative though.

And nice try on you for attempting to make it seem like that was what I was implying, even though it was explicitly stated to be the suffragettes that I was referring too and no one else.

Hohoho. I didn't realise the suffragettes were responsible for WW1 or who fought in it. Thanks for the laugh though.

Literally nothing I stated implied that in any way, shape or form. I could not possibly have been any more clear or explicit on the fact that I was not blaming WW1 on feminism, but the suffragettes, who WHERE feminists, where the driving force of the White Feather movement.

Nice try on trying (and failing) to make it seem like I was saying something else however.

Yes you blamed something the empire did on the suffragettes.

Historical revisionism to fit your narrative.

I know, it sucks that I'm pointing out your historical revisionism doesn't it.

I think you should take a moment to read over what you just posted, because you're conflating "responsible for the war" with "got people to fight in the war", two massively different things. Until conscription was made into law, the state did not directly get people to go off and fight unless they volunteered, however the White Feather campaign, a predominantly feminist movement, played a massive role in shaming men into going off to fight and die.

You may try and deny history and twist my words to mean things I did not state, but the fact remains the suffragettes where feminists, and they where the driving force for recruitment before conscription. They aren't responsible for starting the war, at no point did anyone other then you ever imply or state that, but they where responsible for trying to get men to go off and fight and die for Empire.

I think it would help, in the future, to actually watch the video in question before getting into an argument about it. If you can't do that it's hard to have a proper discussion about the topic brought up in the video in question.

I like how your big long speech there was the suffragettes were responsible for the war and who fought in it. I am loving this. I mean my god, I would say it would be funny if it wasn't so bizarre, but it actually is genuinely funny.

I should watch the video about historical revisionism? No thanks, I prefer facts rather than your narrative.

Pluvia:

Yes you blamed something the empire did on the suffragettes.

Historical revisionism to fit your narrative.

I know, it sucks that I'm pointing out your historical revisionism doesn't it.

Repeating a lie does not eventually make it truth.

I like how your big long speech there was the suffragettes were responsible for the war and who fought in it. I am loving this. I mean my god, I would say it would be funny if it wasn't so bizarre, but it actually is genuinely funny.

As I said, repeating a lie does not make it truth, especially when stated directly after a quote which contradicts your own statement, and has your own post show you're only affirming my previous statements.

I should watch the video about historical revisionism? No thanks, I prefer facts rather than your narrative.

The problem with this statement is the video isn't about historical revisionism, it's stating facts such as using recordings from the leader of the suffragette movement and news articles from the period. It is not historical revisionism to take what people said and did with evidence of such and state the correct fact that they said and did exactly that. The closest thing there is to historical revisionism in this threat is your continual failed attempts to paint my comments as inlying that feminism is responsible for WW1 in direct defiance of literally everything I said.

Zontar:

Pluvia:

Yes you blamed something the empire did on the suffragettes.

Historical revisionism to fit your narrative.

I know, it sucks that I'm pointing out your historical revisionism doesn't it.

Repeating a lie does not eventually make it truth.

I like how your big long speech there was the suffragettes were responsible for the war and who fought in it. I am loving this. I mean my god, I would say it would be funny if it wasn't so bizarre, but it actually is genuinely funny.

As I said, repeating a lie does not make it truth, especially when stated directly after a quote which contradicts your own statement, and has your own post show you're only affirming my previous statements.

Like your attempts at historical revisionism to fit your narrative. Repeating it doesn't make it true.

The problem with this statement is the video isn't about historical revisionism, it's stating facts such as using recordings from the leader of the suffragette movement and news articles from the period. It is not historical revisionism to take what people said and did with evidence of such and state the correct fact that they said and did exactly that. The closest thing there is to historical revisionism in this threat is your continual failed attempts to paint my comments as inlying that feminism is responsible for WW1 in direct defiance of literally everything I said.

Oh no it is. I mean you point blank said that the suffragettes were responsible for who signed up to WW1, when history points out it was the empire. I mean you can't get any clearer on what you're saying: Feminism is responsible for WW1.

It's pure gold. I mean this is absolutely hilarious.

Pluvia:

Oh no it is. I mean you point blank said that the suffragettes were responsible for who signed up to WW1, when history points out it was the empire. I mean you can't get any clearer on what you're saying: Feminism is responsible for WW1.

Shifting the goal post it seems. Now I'm stating that suffragettes where responsible for who signed up to WW1 instead of the war itself.

And my point remains the same, the objectively true factual statement that the suffragettes-driven White Feather campaign was a large part of the pre-conscription recruiting effort. This isn't something that is a narrative, it's a straight up fact that no one on either side can deny. It's like denying the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.

Pluvia:

Zontar:

Pluvia:

Yes you blamed something the empire did on the suffragettes.

Historical revisionism to fit your narrative.

I know, it sucks that I'm pointing out your historical revisionism doesn't it.

Repeating a lie does not eventually make it truth.

I like how your big long speech there was the suffragettes were responsible for the war and who fought in it. I am loving this. I mean my god, I would say it would be funny if it wasn't so bizarre, but it actually is genuinely funny.

As I said, repeating a lie does not make it truth, especially when stated directly after a quote which contradicts your own statement, and has your own post show you're only affirming my previous statements.

Like your attempts at historical revisionism to fit your narrative. Repeating it doesn't make it true.

The problem with this statement is the video isn't about historical revisionism, it's stating facts such as using recordings from the leader of the suffragette movement and news articles from the period. It is not historical revisionism to take what people said and did with evidence of such and state the correct fact that they said and did exactly that. The closest thing there is to historical revisionism in this threat is your continual failed attempts to paint my comments as inlying that feminism is responsible for WW1 in direct defiance of literally everything I said.

Oh no it is. I mean you point blank said that the suffragettes were responsible for who signed up to WW1, when history points out it was the empire. I mean you can't get any clearer on what you're saying: Feminism is responsible for WW1.

It's pure gold. I mean this is absolutely hilarious.

The only pure gold here is you sticking your head in the sand going LALALA I CANT HEAR YOU and twisting his arguments into a strawman. Wich in hindisght is less gold and more of a trainwreck.

Again he never claimed that the suffragettes where RESPONSIBLE for WW1

ONLY that they where a DRIVING FORCE to get british men to go into the War (and die by the hundrets of thousands thanks to the industrialisation of war) by SHAMING them with the reason "You have the right to vote so you should have the obligation to go to war for your country!" even thought most young men didnt even had the right to vote.

But as allways when it comes to feminism, showing that feminist work with the same underhanded tactics as every other political movement allways summons up the strawman fighters that try to derail the discussion by outright making shit up.

Karadalis:

Pluvia:

Zontar:
Repeating a lie does not eventually make it truth.As I said, repeating a lie does not make it truth, especially when stated directly after a quote which contradicts your own statement, and has your own post show you're only affirming my previous statements.

Like your attempts at historical revisionism to fit your narrative. Repeating it doesn't make it true.

The problem with this statement is the video isn't about historical revisionism, it's stating facts such as using recordings from the leader of the suffragette movement and news articles from the period. It is not historical revisionism to take what people said and did with evidence of such and state the correct fact that they said and did exactly that. The closest thing there is to historical revisionism in this threat is your continual failed attempts to paint my comments as inlying that feminism is responsible for WW1 in direct defiance of literally everything I said.

Oh no it is. I mean you point blank said that the suffragettes were responsible for who signed up to WW1, when history points out it was the empire. I mean you can't get any clearer on what you're saying: Feminism is responsible for WW1.

It's pure gold. I mean this is absolutely hilarious.

The only pure gold here is you sticking your head in the sand going LALALA I CANT HEAR YOU and twisting his arguments into a strawman. Wich in hindisght is less gold and more of a trainwreck.

Again he never claimed that the suffragettes where RESPONSIBLE for WW1

ONLY that they where a DRIVING FORCE to get british men to go into the War (and die by the hundrets of thousands thanks to the industrialisation of war) by SHAMING them with the reason "You have the right to vote so you should have the obligation to go to war for your country!" even thought most young men didnt even had the right to vote.

But as allways when it comes to feminism, showing that feminist work with the same underhanded tactics as every other political movement allways summons up the strawman fighters that try to derail the discussion by outright making shit up.

Wikipedia has some info on it:

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

In August 1914, at the start of the First World War, Admiral Charles Fitzgerald founded the Order of the White Feather with support from the prominent author Mrs Humphrey Ward. The organization aimed to shame men into enlisting in the British Army by persuading women to present them with a white feather if they were not wearing a uniform.

This was joined by some prominent feminists and suffragettes of the time, such as Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughter Christabel. They, in addition to handing out the feathers, also lobbied to institute an involuntary universal draft, which included those who lacked votes due to being too young or not owning property.

Well, that certainly SOUNDS like feminists and suffragettes took part in a shaming campaign to get men to volunteer to go fight in WW1, in addition to try and get an involuntary draft in effect...

So I've heard the majority of members of that whole movement were all painfully Middle Class / Bourgeoisie.
...which basically sums up nearly ALL of these English Period films that are more focused on clothing than any historical accuracy

Zontar:

Pluvia:

Oh no it is. I mean you point blank said that the suffragettes were responsible for who signed up to WW1, when history points out it was the empire. I mean you can't get any clearer on what you're saying: Feminism is responsible for WW1.

Shifting the goal post it seems. Now I'm stating that suffragettes where responsible for who signed up to WW1 instead of the war itself.

Uh..

"I mean you can't get any clearer on what you're saying: Feminism is responsible for WW1."

I mean I could understand if you forgot something from earlier in an attempt to pretend I'm shifting the goalposts, but that was quite literally the sentence before yours. Nice try though.

And my point remains the same, the objectively true factual statement that the suffragettes-driven White Feather campaign was a large part of the pre-conscription recruiting effort. This isn't something that is a narrative, it's a straight up fact that no one on either side can deny. It's like denying the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.

The far-Right nationalist and empire driven campaign, yes. That's what you're trying to blame on feminists.

I mean of all the things I've ever heard been blamed on feminism, WW1 takes the cake.

Pluvia:

Uh..

"I mean you can't get any clearer on what you're saying: Feminism is responsible for WW1."

I mean I could understand if you forgot something from earlier in an attempt to pretend I'm shifting the goalposts, but that was quite literally the sentence before yours. Nice try though.

Why are you using a quote of yourself to make a point that doesn't connect to what I've been saying? I never stated nor implies that feminism was responsible for WW1, there is no ambiguity on that matter.

The far-Right nationalist and empire driven campaign, yes. That's what you're trying to blame on feminists.

Wrong, it's a far right nationalist originated campaign that was driven by feminists. Don't mix up conception and drive, they are two very different things, unless you're implying that the suffragettes where far right, but that would have to be your own argument, not mine.

I mean of all the things I've ever heard been blamed on feminism, WW1 takes the cake.

Which probably stems from the fact you are the only one here making that claim.

Marter:
Suffragette - Feminism, The Movie

A period piece that just so happens to be about an important and still-relevant social issue.

Read Full Article

That description also works for Jim Henson's Dinosaurs.
image

It was a sort of Flintsones/Married with Children parody that spoke of the political issues & social stigmas of the times & reminds anyone who watches it to day that a good chunk of political & social issues haven't improved in the slightest in the past 30 years, though I'd have to say the feminism parts of it feel really dated, like it was making fun of the 60s instead of the 80s.

Zontar:
Why are you using a quote of yourself to make a point that doesn't connect to what I've been saying? I never stated nor implies that feminism was responsible for WW1, there is no ambiguity on that matter.

Looks like we're back to this:

"I'll backtrack and hope no one notices stuff like this":

It was the empire that got people to fight in the war, not feminism.

I didn't realize Suffragettes where not feminists.

Nice try backtracking again though.

Wrong, it's a far right nationalist originated campaign that was driven by feminists. Don't mix up conception and drive, they are two very different things, unless you're implying that the suffragettes where far right, but that would have to be your own argument, not mine.

In fact here you are deliberately mixing up the suffragettes and the empire again. The suffrogettes are responsible for the actions of the empire and are responsible for who fought in WW1.

Hell I mean I cannot stress how bizarre it is that you're blaming WW1 on feminism. Of all the things I hoped I'd hear people say, I never realised I'd hear something as foot in mouth as that.

Which probably stems from the fact you are the only one here making that claim.

Nice try backtracking again. This is what happens when you try to revise history to fit your narrative.

But hey, maybe feminism will be responsible for WW3 as well.

Pluvia:

In fact here you are deliberately mixing up the suffragettes and the empire again. The suffrogettes are responsible for the actions of the empire and are responsible for who fought in WW1.

Hell I mean I cannot stress how bizarre it is that you're blaming WW1 on feminism. Of all the things I hoped I'd hear people say, I never realised I'd hear something as foot in mouth as that.

Probably because you didn't hear someone say that, you're simply said that is what I said despite the writing even in the quotes you make showing no, that is not at all what I said. You're at best reading between the lines for a message that isn't there.

Which probably stems from the fact you are the only one here making that claim.

Nice try backtracking again. This is what happens when you try to revise history to fit your narrative.

You're literally revising history by taking what I said, twisting it to mean something else, and you then go on to claim I'm the one revising history to fit my "narrative" by simply stating objective facts? My god, I had no idea factual statements where revisionist (though admittedly if the history in question is not based on factual evidence then I guess rewriting it to fit the evidence would be revisionism).

Pluvia:

Zontar:
Just because a far right nationalist comes up with an idea doesn't change the fact it was far left feminists who accepted and implemented it, though you'd know that if you actually watched the video.

It was the entire empire. Nice try on the historical revisionism to try and fit your narrative though.

Yes, a movement of people trying to get their group to be able to vote shaming another group into going off the fight and die in a pointless conflict on the pretext that their right to vote means they have responsibility to society despite most of them not in fact having the right to vote has no relevance.

It was the empire that got people to fight in the war, not feminism.

Of all the things I thought I'd hear feminism blamed for, it wasn't WW1. I honest to god laughed out loud by how bizarre that was, I mean my god. I mean this is like blaming feminism for the Nazi's. I wish that was a hyperbole.

I think you're both overestimating feminism's influence here. Yes, it was a British Admiral who came up with the idea. No, it wasn't done out of far-right tendencies but out of necessity. The UK was still employing a carrot and stick policy to get native Brits to enlist, and the White Feather campaign was an attack on young men's masculinity by local girls (whom they probably had crushes on) into going to war (many of these kids didn't even know about the horrors of the trenches because propaganda).
Yes, Feminists got involved. No, it wasn't out of a malicious tenet of their ideology, it was politically expedient for them to cosy up to the government and give them what they wanted in the hopes of a deal when the war was done. Ulster Unionists did the same thing in regards to handing the army trained regiments.
It wasn't just feminists though. Picture yourself as a teenager or twenty-something, who's half dozen brothers are all off to war, possibly dead, and you see able-bodied men walking around your town when all signs from the news point to these people as being cowards. It's not difficult to have negative feelings towards those people, and the White Feathers allowed even non-feminists to act on this disdain.

http://podbay.fm/show/173001861
Number 53 is about it.

On The Blast:

cleric of the order:

Also as an aside do the police officers really end up beating them during one of the earlier scenes?
Was that a thing, i mean bully for the cops but I distinctly remember the temperance movement being unopposed when they would destroy private property, I mean maybe it's an British verses America thing but it seems weird.
Perfectly reasonable for the cops to beat up rioters for the day, just from what I know not women

They beat the shit out of them. Then the ladies beat the shit out of them right back.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34425615

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here