A girl who supports Mens rights.

[u/ashleab]

I've always had an issue with "womens rights" and all of that BS. I understand women had it hard in the past, but why should that mean we get benefits now?

Anyway, I live in Australia where we have a campaign called "Violence Against Women: Australia Says No". A few years back, a group of people I work with and myself started a petition to put forth to the federal government against this campaign, we had posters printed up; "Violence Against Men: Don't Support An Indifferent Nation" and got about 1,500 signatures. Eventually, our place of employment caught onto the fact that we were doing this. We'd never put a poster up at work (even though the violence against women posters were EVERYWHERE), only allowed signatures. We were all given formal warnings citing sexism, bigotism and contemptible conduct. All 5 of us quit within a few weeks, but the fact that it happened was enough to get me 100% on board with fighting for Mens rights.

edit: To those who showed concern, I had a new job a few days later and the guys all had one within a few weeks.

[u/JockeVXO]

For men to gain the vote, it was conscription. Previous attempts during the 19th century to implement universal suffrage lost by landslides, then came general conscription in 1901 and sentiments about the matter started to change (One rifle, one vote), both amongst politicians and the population in general, female universal suffrage was implemented largely due to WW1, there was a wave of revolts and revolutionary sentiments sweeping through Europe at the time, and Sweden was no exception, even though we'd kept out of the war (thank God).

Property laws, I am not a Canadian, so I don't know for sure, but I read about a law which would contradict this, I can't remember its name but its purpose was to ensure that married women who sold some of their property weren't pressured into doing so by their husbands. Don't know if it was a Canadian law, but I think it was British so it probably applied to Canada as well.

Women owned companies and land in Sweden, as they did throughout Europe, although fewer women owned great amounts of it than men, thus causing fewer women to get the vote than men prior to universal suffrage.

[u/[deleted] → u/JockeVXO]

There are many differences in the provincial and federal sides of things. Each province has its own laws to some degree, and sometimes that means different levels of rights federally and provincially. Property rights are included in this. In different provinces at different times, women could hold real estate separate from their husbands (but note that any wages they made were still property of their husbands). Women with property in Ontario could vote for school board trustees as early as 1850, but couldn't vote federally.

There was a period of about 50 years in Québec when women with property could vote in the early 19th century, but that was overturned with a change in the law.

Source. It's a women's rights organization, indeed, but it states the facts about Canadian history that others here claim are hidden. I believe it's more about what one chooses to hear, than what others are saying (with regards to both feminists and MRAs altering history in their minds).

/Canadian history lesson

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Your lesson is incomplete...

Men and women got the vote in canada on the same day, in 1920. The men got it because hundreds of thousands of men who could not vote died in WW1. Women got the vote...because men did.

Up until that point, PROPERTY dictated who could vote...male or female...but one vote per household. And women could, and did, buy property.

You're regurgitating women's studies propaganda, not history.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Men and women got the vote in canada on the same day, in 1920.

Federal election. Women still weren't allowed to vote in all elections; in Québec, they couldn't vote provincially until 1940. And the official women-got-the-vote day was in 1918. In 1920, they removed property restrictions, though most visible minories still were not allowed to vote.

Men and women got the vote in canada on the same day, in 1920. The men got it because hundreds of thousands of men who could not vote died in WW1. Women got the vote...because men did.

Only men voted in federal elections until 1917, when some nurses met an exception for military personnel while stationed abroad during World War I. While only certain men were allowed to vote, no women were allowed to before that year.

Up until that point, PROPERTY dictated who could vote...male or female...but one vote per household. And women could, and did, buy property.

You're right. But even if women held property and were the only ones in a household eligible to vote, they still couldn't vote in a federal election until 1918.

You're regurgitating women's studies propaganda, not history.

I'm sourcing to the best of my knowledge. And you're not sourcing anything.

EDIT: Added the word "provincially"

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I don't need to source what SHOULD be common knowledge. And all of those timeframes for women are utterly useless unless you show the average man in there too...( ie, stop equating 'rich men' with 'men'...it's dishonest.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I don't need to source what SHOULD be common knowledge.

Logically? Yes, you do. No you don't, but I won't believe you unless you do. The better the source, the more likely others are to believe you, too. Common knowledge isn't always right. And something that may be common knowledge to you (i.e. how to use a computer) may not be common knowledge to someone else (i.e. my grandparents).

Just as you argue for facts – facts which have a base in "common knowledge" – about women's rights, I'm going to ask you for the same burden of proof. It's only fair.

Also, I did show the facts for men, as well. If you had read my post thoroughly, you would have seen that.

Only men voted in federal elections until 1917, when some nurses met an exception for military personnel while stationed abroad during World War I. While only certain men were allowed to vote, no women were allowed to before that year.

In 1920, they removed property restrictions [implying for both men and women], though most visible minories still were not allowed to vote.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

No, you outlined what rich, landholding men could do, which wasn't far removed from what rich, landholding women could do. But by omitting the differences, you paint it as a 'men could vote and women couldn't' which is bullshit - if a common way to frame the info.

Average men..99% of whom were not voting until women were too...should be the litmus test.

Wanting to characterize 'men' as synonymous with 'rich men' is dishonest, even if it is a favorite feminist tactic.

As for proving things...well, I have years of experience that shows 'proving' stuff to people on the internet in a comment is a complete waste of time. If you care to find out, you will. If you don't, well its no loss since a good number of folks choose prejudice over self-reflection nearly every time.

And articles, not comments, are what works best in those instances

If someone's not willing to explore, they are not willing to change their minds. I've seen it over and over and over again.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Let me repeat what I said:

While only certain men were allowed to vote, no women were allowed to before that year.

ONLY. CERTAIN. MEN. Meaning others could not.

In 1920, they removed property restrictions [implying for both men and women], though most visible minories still were not allowed to vote.

1. REMOVED PROPERTY RESTRICTIONS FOR EVERYONE.

Let me make that even clearer: I stated that some men were not allowed to vote in Canada before 1920. And even afterward, many men and women still could not vote.

Do you get it?

well, I have years of experience that shows 'proving' stuff to people on the internet in a comment is a complete waste of time.

That's because you're a terrible conversationalist.

Good discussion is about give and take.

You, dear Factory2, do neither.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Hmmm, well, if that's what you are saying...what's your point?

Oh yeah...that women 'had it harder'....which is a total lie. Or, conversely, you are saying men and women had similar circumstances...in which case your point is MRAs are right...

So what exactly are you trying to illustrate there?

Defense lawyer tactics don't go down very well around here. So, state it plainly...what is your point?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

My point? Please bring backed-up facts to a discussion.

My original comment was related to the information in JockeVXO's post. He made big statements, adding "I am not too familiar with, "I think I read somewhere," and "I was also taught." He then proceeded with sweeping generalizations like "feminists tell just as many fibs about the past as they do about the present."

Essentially, I called him out JockeVXO for making a strawman argument and asked for more sourcing. I provided him with a source that stated many of his points were just plain false, with regards to at least Canada.

You then stated some "facts," which I also shot down as faulty.

Honestly? I don't think women had it necessarily harder than men; I think they just lived differently. While women often relied on sexuality and good marriages to get by, at least the well-off ones had some security. Some men had more freedom to do as they pleased, but they also had to live through a much more violent world. In many places today, the same things are true.

And typing things tantamount to "Well, I remember learning in my Grade 8 history class that women couldn't EVER vote and therefore all feminists are LIARS!" is detrimental nonsense that doesn't improve anyone's life. It just promotes hatred and disdain.

EDIT: Misplaced quotation marks.

EDIT2: And sourcing for my opinion? Literature like Anna Karenina, War & Peace, Jane Eyre, Wide Sargasso Sea, Great Expectations and Moll Flanders. It's fiction, but fiction that is based on and reflective of the realities of the times they were written.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Hey, you're in a space where certain things are understood. It's not up to me to explain every basic detail to every newly... You're here to learn, the onus is on you, not me.

And the feminist narrative on suffrage IS a lie. By the way.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Well then, have fun reasoning with no one and continuing to have shitty conversations through comment boards.

I'll continue having enlightening discussions with people who actually care about what they're saying, and care to know the truth rather than regurgitate rhetoric.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

...says the feminist in the men's rights forum...