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?
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.
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.
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.
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.