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.
Sex workers are consistently at or near the vanguard of good social change.
people with the most exposure to how fucked things are are always the most likely to seek solutions that will unfuck things
Hell yeah I love women
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.
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).
Oh shit, did he go as far as to claim he was personally responsible? Wouldn’t surprise me.
It would be hilarious if Trump claimed to be personally responsible for women voting rights though. Terrifying but also funny!
The political right in the US is doing that.
Often that’s conflated into meaning just men in general tho
The sufragette movement pressured the government (men) to give women the right to vote. In what universe is this not an accurate description of what happened?
I’d like to remind everyone that universal men voting rights are not that much older in most countries.
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.
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.
Giving something at gunpoint isnt really giving it.
That thing is being taken.
I think this is the source of our disagreement. In my mind, the word “give” has at most a mild connotation of volition.
Interesting. So like whats the dividing line between ‘being given something’ and ‘taking something’?
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.
Remember that your power was used to get you voting ‘rights’, not derived from them.
Those were the good ol days.
