Sex workers are consistently at or near the vanguard of good social change.
cassandrafatigue 30 points a year ago
cassandrafatigue 14 points a year ago
Basically any radical history or sex worker activist or history of sex work that doesn't have a bullshit agenda.
Sorry I'd be more particular but I'm nowhere near sober.
TheDoozer 5 points a year ago
I don't know in general, but Lou Graham, the Seattle Madam is a pretty famous historical figure and did an immense amount of good, including HUGE donations to children's education.
UnderpantsWeevil 32 points a year ago
It's funny, because what women did in the 1910s to win the vote would almost certainly be described as "terrorism" in the modern moment
cassandrafatigue 11 points a year ago
Yeah anything that works even a little is terrorism.
Doomsider 8 points a year ago
For real. Magas transported back to 1910's would be like
Your are against male privilege, you are trying to get new "rights", and you want to change our God given right to treat women how they deserve to be?
Sounds like woke Antifa terrorism to me.
Even funnier, this is the exact thing they would say about ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment today.
UnderpantsWeevil 10 points a year ago
No no. You don't understand.
Sufferegates were doing bombings and arsons.
The campaign, led by key WSPU figures such as Emmeline Pankhurst, targeted infrastructure, government, churches and the general public, and saw the use of improvised explosive devices, arson, letter bombs, assassination attempts and other forms of direct action and violence.
This is hyperbole
Sounds like woke Antifa terrorism to me.
If modern leftists had an ounce of the enthusiasm of First Wave Feminists, we'd unironically be talking about them like we talk about Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski
Doomsider 4 points a year ago
So some extremists killed some people who were denounced by suffragettes as terrorists.
These extremists didn't get the right to vote and instead gave up their struggle for the war.
Is someone wearing rose colored glasses comparing suffragettes to murderers thus conflating an effective peaceful movement with an ineffective violent one?
cassandrafatigue 2 points a year ago
No id be saying "all my comrades are way cooler than me. I need to get my shit together; there's a real chance we could win a future where theres still habitable earth."
Instead of "you're all dipshit reactionaries cosplaying 1950s civil rights movements and not trying to actually change anything. Love the vibes though. Wanna get high?"
UnderpantsWeevil 3 points a year ago
you’re all dipshit reactionaries cosplaying 1950s civil rights movements and not trying to actually change anything.
Idk who this "you all" is. Pretty wide spectrum of individuals in the movement
Scipitie 30 points a year ago
Serious question even though I know if the answer isn't "no one" it just sound stupid or loaded to people from these cultural circles:
Who twists the history in a way to light voting rights for women as some kind of male achievement? Oo
I mean I've heard of individual men being supportive but that word already implies them not being the drivers.
I'm genuinely curious because with no exposure to that framing the post reads like ragebaiting - but it also might be justified rage I just wasn't exposed to so far, if you get my drift.
I_Fart_Glitter 18 points a year ago
It's being referred to as a privilege that can be taken away. There has been discussion among the ultra right in the last four years of making the male head of household the only one with voting rights.
This law is being pushed to "protect the integrity of votes" by only letting people vote if their name matches their birth certificate, which would put up a barrier to climb over for married women who have changed their last name and trans people whose names don't match their birth certificate and people who don't have access to or the money to get a copy of their birth certificate.
The Pentagon says Pete Hegseth supports women's right to vote, even though he reposts videos of church leaders saying they should not vote.
Scipitie 8 points a year ago
Oh my fucking god. Like ... I knew that the US politics were derailed/deranged but. Wait, I'm actually surprised that I'm surprised by this. It's ... Consistent.
Thanks for this anyway, today I learned something - although the thing itself is shitty the learning isn't 💜
lonefighter 2 points a year ago
I'm a divorced cisgender woman who legally changed my name to something that is neither my maiden name nor my married name and got a new birth certificate to back it up. I wonder if I'd get around their stupid rules or if they'd just drag me out back and execute me.
damnedfurry 3 points a year ago
You can actually get a new/updated birth certificate? I thought that was pretty much 'set in stone' with essentially 'what's true at the moment of birth', had no idea that was possible.
lonefighter 4 points a year ago
I didn't know either! Before I updated it things were a pain in the ass because I was hauling around my birth certificate, marriage certificate, divorce paperwork, and legal name change paperwork, and was constantly having to explain how I got from birth name to current name via marriage but also that I wasn't currently married. It confused everyone when I was like "so here's my legal name change paperwork but the previous name on that doesn't match my birth certificate because it's my married name but I'm not married anymore so here's my married license that shows my maiden name which is what's on the birth certificate and here's my divorce paperwork showing I'm not married anymore". So annoying and I was sick of having to be reminded of my marriage.
Turns out (at least in my state) all it took was sending in a notorized form ($7 at the UPS store), an official copy of my legal name change, and the fee for a new birth certificate (I think like $25). It took about 4 months, but I have a new birth certificate that is identical to my old one in every way, except it has my current legal name on it. Absolutely fills me with joy because now my social security card, passport, drivers license, and birth certificate all match and I'll never have to haul around the rest of that paperwork again. One of my FTM trans coworkers updated his birth certificate and it shows his new name and his gender as male.
I_Fart_Glitter 2 points a year ago
Depends on your state of fertility. You may be given a red dress and assigned to a new house. Blessed be the fruit.
lonefighter 2 points a year ago
Thankfully I found a doctor who permanently took care of that problem forever :) I am one of the conservatives' nightmares: a divorced 30-something single cat lady who can't have babies, lives alone, and works a fuck ton of hours to pay all my own bills. I'm also useless as a housewife and I curse a fuckton. Meek tradwife/breeding material I am not.
SanctimoniousApe 8 points a year ago
Men like Trump, who want to get credit for all the things that people supporting him consider good, and deflect blame for all the crappy things he's actually responsible for (or that any respectable leader would take responsibility for because they are the leader, regardless of if they actually were behind it).
chonglibloodsport 26 points a year ago
Rights are never given, they’re taken, all the way back to the Magna Carta. Rights can also be taken away if people don’t step up and defend them. The universe does not care about us!
SwingingTheLamp 3 points a year ago
Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act
I'm so glad that somebody still remembers that. He also decided that summary executions of US citizens was just fine, demolishing another pillar of due process. "Voting blue" on its own does nothing to safeguard our rights.
chonglibloodsport 2 points a year ago
Yep! The universe doesn’t guarantee rights after they’re won! It’s not like points on a scoreboard. It’s more like territory on a map. Rights must be continually defended!
Formfiller 2 points a year ago
We’re watching our rights being systematically removed and or history be erased in real time
UnderpantsWeevil 10 points a year ago
Office, I didn't take anything. I simply showed the man my revolver and he helpfully opened his wallet and gave me everything inside
jaselle -1 points a year ago
Yes, this is essentially the sense in which I mean "give." You got it. This is unironically why the OP image is ragebait -- "give" is literally what happened. I don't know of anyone who would deny the suffragettes and their agitation are the reason women were given the right to vote.
Semester3383 1 point a year ago
Again: the agitation of the suffragettes might be the reason that men voted for 19A, but without men voting to introduce and ratify 19A, no amount of agitation would have been sufficient. Outright terrorism wouldn't have worked, without men choosing to vote for 19A. The only other way women would have gotten the right to vote was by using sufficient levels of violence to overthrow the state governments.
That's the fundamental reason that minority groups--non-white people, LGBTQ+ people, etc.--NEED allies. Unless the majority is willing to vote to give full rights to minorities, unless there's a sea-change in public opinion, you simply don't see minorities being given rights equal to the majority.
cassandrafatigue 0 points a year ago
willing to vote
You clearly do not understand how power works.
Allies are great. You don't them for voting. If all someone's willing to do is vote, they are not an ally.
You need to make the powerful suffer. That is the only way to step outside the margins.
ThirdConsul 8 points a year ago
I'd like to remind everyone that universal men voting rights are not that much older in most countries.
BillyTheKid2 3 points a year ago
A good point! In London,
1918 – Representation of the People Act This is effectively when universal male suffrage happened. All men aged 21+ could vote
1928 – Equal Franchise Act Full equality: women could vote at 21+, the same as men.
People keep making this a men vs women thing, but that's a distraction. There is no war but the class war. Don't let the owner class further divide the proletariat.
Ok. Everybody can get back to meme'n now.
damnedfurry 5 points a year ago
They convinced the men (who the majority of legislators were) in the same way that the gay community convinced the 'straights' (who the majority of legislators were) re same-sex marriage.
That said, it's very reductionist to consider the 19th amendment as the moment 'all women' joined 'all men' in having the right to vote. Many women were voting before the 19th (women already had full voting rights in 15 states by the time it was ratified), and many men weren't before, and still weren't for long after, the 19th was ratified.
cassandrafatigue 0 points a year ago
That's not how any of that happened!
Washedupcynic 3 points a year ago
This was done via state campaigns to change state law giving women in targeted state the right to vote. Once enough states had that right/law on the books it made federal constitutional amendment possible, without needing to lobby the federal government to give women the right.
cassandrafatigue -1 points a year ago
Giving something at gunpoint isnt really giving it.
That thing is being taken.
cassandrafatigue 1 point a year ago
Interesting. So like whats the dividing line between 'being given something' and 'taking something'?
jaselle 1 point a year ago
For me, you can't use 'give' if there was no action on the giver's behalf, but coerced action counts as action. Same with take -- you 'take' something only if you're capable of a 'take' action. So if you're in a coma, you can't 'take' anything offered to you (except in idiomatic phrases where action on the taker isn't expected, e.g. "to take abuse").
This is why I seriously believe that OP's image is controversial more do to a difference in our linguistic understanding of the word "give" than do to a differing understanding of the facts.
Edit: I think what may be happening here is the so-called "non-central" fallacy.
cassandrafatigue 7 points a year ago
Remember that your power was used to get you voting 'rights', not derived from them.
Jax 5 points a year ago
I can't believe this is something that needs to be stated. It does, clearly, but the fact that it needs to be stated boggles the mind.
If you're a man in current year that holds onto the idea that women only have rights because men decided to stop beating/subjugating them — Jesus tap dancing Christ go see a therapist.
DioramaOfShit 2 points a year ago
I thought it said slut. Thanks
lmmarsano 0 points a year ago
Needs text alternative.
Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative such as link:
- usability
- we can't quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR
- text search is unavailable
- the system can't
- reflow text to varied screen sizes
- vary presentation (size, contrast)
- vary modality (audio, braille)
- accessibility
- lacks semantic structure (tags for titles, heading levels, sections, paragraphs, lists, emphasis, code, links, accessibility features, etc)
- some users can't read this due to lack of alt text
- users can't adapt the text for dyslexia or vision impairments
- systems can't read the text to them or send it to braille devices
- web connectivity
- we have to do failure-prone bullshit to find the original source
- we can't explore wider context of the original message
- authenticity: we don't know the image hasn't been tampered
- searchability: the "text" isn't indexable by search engine in a meaningful way
- fault tolerance: no text fallback if
- image breaks
- image host is geoblocked due to insane regulations.
Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.
Welcome to the concept of fundamental/inherent/inalienable human rights & liberties from liberal philosophy (ie, liberalism). Authorities don't "give" fundamental rights, they respect or repress them.
dreary8154 -2 points a year ago
Those were the good ol days.
AdolfSchmitler 1 point a year ago
Lol here's a sexist joke.
Why do they teach women's studies but not men's studies? Well they do it's just called history :P
Socialjusticewarrior -3 points a year ago path: 0 20804849, hotness: undefined, score: -3, children: 0
go to feed...
go to feed...
In the US, Wyoming prostitutes gave women the right to vote. Because women were so scarce in the territory, they held a lot of power, political and economic. Wyoming women demanded the right to vote and hold office and the men ratified the right happily. When the US wanted Wyoming to join the union, Wyoming's response was "not without our women". So, that's how Wyoming became the first state in the union to allow women citizens to vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/...
save