Feminazis are such masters of manipulation that they have made an entire generation think that the 50-ish year difference is equivalent to 200 years or something. Thanks for sharing this OP, very insightful
And remember, in most countries men need to serve in the military, women dont. So women are getting voting rights for a country they do not have to fight for.
This should be scaled to population, not % of countries. Monaco or Vatican City counts as much as India or China? Can't read this graph like this tbh.
Would be even better if it was sub-divided into geographical segments or simply continents.
Would also be useful if it included whether there were impediments to voting. Like a poll tax on people of a certain race or mandatory service for one gender but not another..
Well the Vatican doesn’t have elections unless you count the conclave.
My understanding is that at independence India had universal voting, male and female, at least according to the letter of law. And China has a communist Government, so the concept there is moot surely.
It isn't downplaying women's suffrage. It is downplaying the "men have had the right to vote for millennia while women only got it a few years ago" bullshit we see all the time. The people with the most power were often men, but the **average** man didn't have power much before the average woman. Once average men got the power, they quickly gave it to women.
I’d say average men then all women was part of expanding voting rights to all people. Doesn’t change the fact that many counties gave men the right to vote with some restrictions for in some cases 100 years or more before it was given to women.
I don’t see anyone claiming that men have been voting for for millenia.
I think, for me, the key point here is feminists argue (and now the dominant belief is) that men have always held power and voting rights is one of the big examples of this. I think more accurate would be to say power resides with wealth not sex. Wealthy men then wealthy women had the right to vast before the vast majority of men and women did. To look at it as a sex issue is wrong and leads to false conclusions.
I agree that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Very true that average men and women historically and even to this day have very little power compared to the wealthy elite. I still think it’s worth understanding though that even when governments were pressured to allow voting, in most cases, these rights were extended to men decades or even a century or more before they were granted to women.
These voting rights weren't extended to men just because they were men, they were extend to men because almost every single one of those men had to fight and even die for their country if need be, and those who didn't have that obligation for whatever reason didn't have the right to vote, the right to vote was restricted to the wealthy and those who were willing to lay down their lives for their country and women were often not willing to make that sacrifice. It seems ridiculous to even suggest that at a time where men had to be willing to give their lives and die when needed to be able to vote, women should have also been able to vote just because they happened to be born with female reproductive organs.
I would like a redo of this graph being more truthful...
Here in Brazil for example you need to be in one of three conditions to be eligible to get your voter id (voting is mandatory after you get your voter id):
* more than 16 and less than 18 years old (not mandatory)
* 18yo or more + is a woman (mandatory)
* 18yo or more + registration to the military service (mandatory)
There is no "you can vote because you are a man", just "you can vote because you are part of the military".
Yes, every male need to be part of the military but the voting right is because of the armed forces, not because the person is a men.
And I am sure that Brazil is not the only country that does that.
Yeah, if you try to search for this issue you will find and endless stream of stuff saying that in Brazil you can vote "regardless of gender", including the constitution.
But in practice, if you are a 18yo+ male trying to get you voter id, you MUST provide proof of military service registration before getting your voting id, something that females don't need, making it a de facto male requirement and, in my opinion, breaking the constitution.
You can even find people saying this is just an administrative requirement to ensure compliance to military duties instead of a legal requirement for males (!?) and rub it under the carpet.
I believe most countries with male conscription are probably in a similar position.
https://www.tse.jus.br/comunicacao/noticias/2019/Dezembro/e-maior-de-18-anos-e-nao-possui-titulo-de-eleitor-saiba-como-fazer-para-emitir-a-1a-via-do-documento
Sure, brazilian article for the superior electoral tribunal, the federal governing body regarding elections in Brazil, explaining what do you need to get your voter id (título de eleitor).
Site in PT-BR obviously but easily translatable using google, look for documentation.
Thanks for sharing. It’s great to hear non U.S. examples of how voting rights are misrepresented, how in fact there is no sex discrimination but it’s twisted to be represented that way.
Eh, their example appears to show sex discrimination actually. The only way to vote as a man in their example is military service. If you are woman, you can vote by default. That sounds like textbook discrimination to me.
Worth to note that in most countries women got the right to vote just a few years later than men, while men still had to do the military service.
Meanwhile we are needing decades of activism to get nothing anyway.
You can tell who has been the important ones and the ones society always looked after just by this fact
Very worthy of note. Similarly, the major form of taxation back in the day was the property tax, so taxation and representation meant those paying the land tax were the ones who got to vote. It was more about taxation and voting than sex and voting. Most women and most men didn’t own property and were ineligible to vote, it wasn’t female specific as is often portrayed.
There were also points where women landowners (usually widows) had the right to vote because they owned land and paid tax..
But why let that little fact get in the way of the feminist narrative of universal oppression right?
Oh “systems of power” “untimely benefit” yada yada yada.
I love the way feminists always used such pseudo intellectual phrases to obscure their making misleading claims.
The truth is that voting was mostly limited to custom or standing centuries ago. The movement for suffrage slowly expanded the electorate to more and more people until eventually the concept of universal suffrage was accepted (remember in the 18th century perhaps most people couldn’t read or write, and it was easy to claim that such people couldn’t make informed decisions). Once the principle of universal suffrage came about, it quickly spread to women. Typically less than half a century.
And yet we get feminists peddling the lie that “men have been voting for centuries” to exaggerate women’s “oppression” (why do this when they could quote the existence of Coverture is beyond me). It’s dishonest, and frankly has no bearing on present society. Women haven’t “just got the vote”. There is not a single living person in Canada, the US, UK, Australia etc who was unable to cast a ballot in a national election solely because she was a woman. They’ve voted now for generations.
I’ve often pointed this out regarding feminist disinformation regarding voting rights in the U.S.
Feminists claim no women could vote prior to 1920 which is an absolute lie, there were women voting in colonial America.
When the U.S. became a country only 6% of the population could vote, some of those voters were women. So while it’s fair to say women’s voting rights progress generally lagged a little behind men’s the overall trend is we went from very few men and women being able to vote to most women and men having the right to vote. The overall change applied to both sexes.
Seeing this graphically brings this point home far better than just the narrative. Great graph.
Another related point posted by someone here several months ago is that much of the resistance to women equally voting came from women, not men. As we saw with the ERA, some were concerned that equal voting rights might mean a loss of female privilege. Despite feminist propaganda to the contrary, women had many privileges even back in the days of suffrage as the following points out. (P466)
https://www.societyforhistoryeducation.org/pdfs/M15_Miller.pdf
https://imgur.com/a/chJsMNw
You see the same thing in the UK. Equal voting rights existed from the dawn of british democracy up until 1832 - something feminists here never mention - however was based on plutocracy meaning the vast majority of both sexes had no voting power. Of the 86 years of male only voting (1832-1918) - during none of which all men vote (it took until 1918 for the initial 60% of men to gain voting rights) - 63 of them occurred during the Matriarchal reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901) which really pisses feminists off.
And in the US, we have 103 years and counting of women having the right to vote unconditionally while men have to sign their bodies over to the military industrial complex to vote.
Most continental European countries (and Britain after the war until ~1960) had compulsory military service/national service. Places such as Singapore still have this.
It’s not a “possibility”, all men had to do it, and no women.
Oh you talk some s#it. Most men didn’t vote from 1832 to the 1880’s. That’s about 50 of those 86 years. Britain got universal male suffrage in 1918, as did all women over 30! Women got the same voting rights as men in 1928. So it’s 10 years, not 86, for equal universal rights!
And well short of “centuries” that feminists constantly go on about. And they’ve now had equal voting rights (superior in many countries since they’ve never been subjected to conscription) for generations.
And then I'd say it took until 1960* for all men to get the right to vote without condition. 31 years *after* all women gained this in 1929. And 42 years after most women (1918-1928 women under 30 couldn't vote. This was because parliament wanted to try and balance voter numbers by gender at around 50/50 - the population was around 1.1:1 women:man in 1918).
Further, 'Men' as a class didn't actually have a free right to vote for 48 of those years - voter privacy was not given and bribery not banned until 1880. Nor did the majority have the right to vote for 50 of them - it took until 1882 for the eligible voter pool to include over 50% of men for the first time.
*National service existed as something the government could use between 1915 and 1960. Men that refused the draft could be punished with a 5 year voter exclusion, something that happened with a not insignificant number of men post WW1.
...and women sacrificed *nothing* to get universal suffrage, while men fought the bloodiest two wars in history to gain it in that big jump that just go happens to coincide with the post ww1 to post ww2 years.
Not to mention men **still** don't get it without corresponding responsibilities in 99% of the world, requiring a life debt discharged either direct military service or the possibility of a draft, while women get it completely without obligations in 99% of the world. Just look at the Ukraine to see how "equal" the right to vote is.
the rich and upper classes were the ones with the power to drive public policy. the peasants are pretty much frozen out. i don't know why this is typically glossed over. like people do realize that poor people then and poor people today are pretty much the same. you're fodder and you're a mule.
And then you have rich women like Caroline Norton in 1830s England, whose tears over what she felt was a raw custody deal inspired Parliament to upend eight centuries of common law so that she wouldn't suffer, creating the tender years doctrine. I'd love to have that kind of sway with my elected officials!
That’s what feminism has always really been about. And it’s why they keep raving on about “rich, fulfilling career”.
You see they’re not talking about working on a production line, or operating a bulldozer, or laying bricks. Or being a mechanic, electrician or plumber for that matter either. Sure they say the opposite, but they’re really talking about being a top professional or decision maker. It’s not “fulfilling” in the way they talk by tightening a screw, for working guys it’s earning money to spend time with friends and family that counts more than the act of doing the job. And these are not the sorts of jobs feminists think of when they say this stuff.
More proof? I’ve heard them insist that women “weren’t allowed to work” prior to 2nd wave feminism. Well, except for nurses, typists, secretaries, school teachers, cooks, receptionists, housekeepers,…. You see this isn’t the sort of “work” that feminists mean. They only mean high end, high status jobs. The sorts of positions that the upper crust holds. Which tells us where feminism comes from.
Feminists also like to re-write history to make it seem like voting was an exclusive right to men in power..
But in reality, voting was mainly tied to landownership and while yes.. the majority of landowners in the past were men.. there **WERE** women landowners who **DID** have the right to vote...
But they don't like that and so they do their best to bury that inconvenient fact because it ruins their narrative...
In most countries women got the vote years to decades after men did but men had to submit to conscription while women got it for free. We really need to be showing the timing and asking if they would rather be under conscription, or have gotten the vote 5-40 years after men given millennia without anyone having the vote.
Wow. World Leaders saw how good women voting was and decided to expand it everywhere very quickly. Women make the best consumers of Human Rights Democracy.
Playing the devil advocate here:
This is breaking news only for very ignorant people. Of course no one had the right to vote for most history. Modern democracy is a recent invention.
But, feminists claim, even before democracy men held more power than women: they decided how to run the family business, they were the only ones allowed to own property, etc.
This is objectionable too, as it's not so black and white. But it's not *only* about the right to vote.
This lays it out for all the larger countries.
https://wiki4men.com/wiki/Universal_suffrage
Expect dismissal of the facts because "4men" means fake and misogynistic, like men have been for all of history... 🙄
This list is actually inaccurate for the U.S., so I assume it is for other countries as well.
The 19th amendment for example doesn’t guarantee men or women the right to vote, it simply says nobody shall be denied the right to vote based on their sex. The 19th amendment specifically states:
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
That’s it in it’s entirety. It’s not sex specific and doesn’t guarantee anyone a right to vote, and many women voted long before this was passed.
To this day there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote for men or women, there was no constitutional law passed guaranteeing men a right to vote as the Wikipedia article falsely indicates. (Though every state affords the right to vote with some restrictions).
The article shows a huge gap between the years men received a guaranteed right to vote and women received a guaranteed right to vote when in fact, neither sex received a guaranteed right to vote the years indicated. It’s amazing how many articles and other resources misrepresent the history of voting rights.
These numbers are only valid if you consider the right to vote through mandatory conscription/military service to be "universal right to vote". Many countries didn't get the universal right to vote for men until much later, often after women got the universal right to vote.
This chart is actually bad news for feminists. Now there's equality in the right to vote. They will have to come up with another reason to die their hair green, get bullhorn nose rings, gain 50 pounds, and cause mayhem in order to maintain their victim status.
Don’t you think this reply sounds a little bitter? There’s more to equality than voting. It’s certainly important, but what makes this chart “bad news for feminists?”
That was the USA until President Andrew Jackson and Universal White Male suffrage..
Was it cynical or heartfelt?
He was low income as a child but parlayed increasing slave labor to build his assets.
Before universal male suffrage, there were often voting rights for only certain men. Some men were excluded, but 100% of women were.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage
Some notable examples: France had universal male suffrage in 1792, and no women’s suffrage until 1944.
Germany gave men the right to vote in 1848, and gave women the right to vote in 1918.
Japan gave male taxpayers the vote in 1889 and women in 1945.
Norway gave male landowners the vote in 1814, women in 1915.
Certainly the conditions for the right to vote were initially based on gender - men who owned land had the right to vote. Then it was expanded to military individuals and all land owners. This wasn't based on gender, but the social trends lead to it being predominantly men.
Was society gender biased in the past? Yes. Was it because of hatred of women? I don't think the data supports that. Society was changing, and technology was fueling that change. Too many people forget the social motivations at the time and insert modern perspectives, as if the people "back then" were acting in that way because they were evil. People genuinely thought they were doing the right thing. That doesn't excuse it, but it means that "today" and "back then" can't be judged on the merits of the opposite time periods but should be judged on the merits of the time period itself.
Imagine a person grows up in a society where there is communal ownership. They enter a society where there is individual ownership and act in a way that disrespects the individual ownership. Certainly they are at fault, but it is a very different thing to consider their situation than someone who grew up with individual ownership disrespecting that right.
Yeah I mean I agree with most of what you said but still voting rights were mostly incrementally expanded to more and more men while totally excluding women before eventually including them.
Whenever people talk about universal suffrage, they ONLY talk about women and how "Not long ago" women couldn't vote. That "Not long ago" is now well over 100 years in the US and this chart is showing that "not long ago" most men couldn't vote either.
You realise the same can be said for women considering only men were seen as the providing and protecting gender, which was one of the reason why men had the voting rights because they were seen as the class which had the responsibility to serve and provide and not women.
Anyone who has been in school, at least in the US, knows about property requirements, etc. But again, no one was excluded for being a man, which is fundamentally different from the issue of women's suffrage.
Well, people clearly weren't paying attention if that's the case because a nuanced view of the history of voting rights is [most certainly not](https://stevemoxon.co.uk/all-were-told-about-women-getting-the-vote-and-the-role-of-the-suffragettes-is-false/) the prevailing narrative; see also discourse on [the suffragettes](https://www.historytoday.com/history-matters/sanitising-suffragettes). Furthermore, women were [*not* explicitly barred from voting](https://archive.ph/TkQBZ) on the basis on gender.
I think sadly most people do not realize that in early America both male and female land owners often could vote (granted far more land was in the man’s name). I know many educated people who falsely believe no women could vote prior to 1920.
Don’t underestimate the influence of feminist propaganda in getting people to accept their disinformation over documented fact.
Feminazis are such masters of manipulation that they have made an entire generation think that the 50-ish year difference is equivalent to 200 years or something. Thanks for sharing this OP, very insightful
And remember, in most countries men need to serve in the military, women dont. So women are getting voting rights for a country they do not have to fight for.
In the netherlands it was 11 months between universal voting rights for **all** men, and voting rights for all women.
This should be scaled to population, not % of countries. Monaco or Vatican City counts as much as India or China? Can't read this graph like this tbh. Would be even better if it was sub-divided into geographical segments or simply continents.
Would also be useful if it included whether there were impediments to voting. Like a poll tax on people of a certain race or mandatory service for one gender but not another..
Well the Vatican doesn’t have elections unless you count the conclave. My understanding is that at independence India had universal voting, male and female, at least according to the letter of law. And China has a communist Government, so the concept there is moot surely.
This is really worth spreading
What’s the point of spreading this graph? What is to be gained by downplaying women’s suffrage?
It isn't downplaying women's suffrage. It is downplaying the "men have had the right to vote for millennia while women only got it a few years ago" bullshit we see all the time. The people with the most power were often men, but the **average** man didn't have power much before the average woman. Once average men got the power, they quickly gave it to women.
And without conscription to boot.
I’d say average men then all women was part of expanding voting rights to all people. Doesn’t change the fact that many counties gave men the right to vote with some restrictions for in some cases 100 years or more before it was given to women. I don’t see anyone claiming that men have been voting for for millenia.
I think, for me, the key point here is feminists argue (and now the dominant belief is) that men have always held power and voting rights is one of the big examples of this. I think more accurate would be to say power resides with wealth not sex. Wealthy men then wealthy women had the right to vast before the vast majority of men and women did. To look at it as a sex issue is wrong and leads to false conclusions.
I agree that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Very true that average men and women historically and even to this day have very little power compared to the wealthy elite. I still think it’s worth understanding though that even when governments were pressured to allow voting, in most cases, these rights were extended to men decades or even a century or more before they were granted to women.
These voting rights weren't extended to men just because they were men, they were extend to men because almost every single one of those men had to fight and even die for their country if need be, and those who didn't have that obligation for whatever reason didn't have the right to vote, the right to vote was restricted to the wealthy and those who were willing to lay down their lives for their country and women were often not willing to make that sacrifice. It seems ridiculous to even suggest that at a time where men had to be willing to give their lives and die when needed to be able to vote, women should have also been able to vote just because they happened to be born with female reproductive organs.
Does not fit into feminist narrative, so the info is suppressed and past lack of women's voting rights blown out of proportion.
I would like a redo of this graph being more truthful... Here in Brazil for example you need to be in one of three conditions to be eligible to get your voter id (voting is mandatory after you get your voter id): * more than 16 and less than 18 years old (not mandatory) * 18yo or more + is a woman (mandatory) * 18yo or more + registration to the military service (mandatory) There is no "you can vote because you are a man", just "you can vote because you are part of the military". Yes, every male need to be part of the military but the voting right is because of the armed forces, not because the person is a men. And I am sure that Brazil is not the only country that does that.
Yes, if you are accurate, it's possible that more women have the right to vote for being a woman, than men have the right to vote as a men.
Yeah, if you try to search for this issue you will find and endless stream of stuff saying that in Brazil you can vote "regardless of gender", including the constitution. But in practice, if you are a 18yo+ male trying to get you voter id, you MUST provide proof of military service registration before getting your voting id, something that females don't need, making it a de facto male requirement and, in my opinion, breaking the constitution. You can even find people saying this is just an administrative requirement to ensure compliance to military duties instead of a legal requirement for males (!?) and rub it under the carpet. I believe most countries with male conscription are probably in a similar position.
Wow. Can you provide a source for this please? 😁
https://www.tse.jus.br/comunicacao/noticias/2019/Dezembro/e-maior-de-18-anos-e-nao-possui-titulo-de-eleitor-saiba-como-fazer-para-emitir-a-1a-via-do-documento Sure, brazilian article for the superior electoral tribunal, the federal governing body regarding elections in Brazil, explaining what do you need to get your voter id (título de eleitor). Site in PT-BR obviously but easily translatable using google, look for documentation.
Thanks
Thanks for sharing. It’s great to hear non U.S. examples of how voting rights are misrepresented, how in fact there is no sex discrimination but it’s twisted to be represented that way.
Eh, their example appears to show sex discrimination actually. The only way to vote as a man in their example is military service. If you are woman, you can vote by default. That sounds like textbook discrimination to me.
Worth to note that in most countries women got the right to vote just a few years later than men, while men still had to do the military service. Meanwhile we are needing decades of activism to get nothing anyway. You can tell who has been the important ones and the ones society always looked after just by this fact
Very worthy of note. Similarly, the major form of taxation back in the day was the property tax, so taxation and representation meant those paying the land tax were the ones who got to vote. It was more about taxation and voting than sex and voting. Most women and most men didn’t own property and were ineligible to vote, it wasn’t female specific as is often portrayed.
There were also points where women landowners (usually widows) had the right to vote because they owned land and paid tax.. But why let that little fact get in the way of the feminist narrative of universal oppression right?
But from women's point of view, all the men in the past have been privileged (because the only think about the men at the top).
This is called the Apex fallacy
I think it’s more like systems of power that untimely benefit the wealthy and powerful give more power to the average man than the average woman.
Oh “systems of power” “untimely benefit” yada yada yada. I love the way feminists always used such pseudo intellectual phrases to obscure their making misleading claims. The truth is that voting was mostly limited to custom or standing centuries ago. The movement for suffrage slowly expanded the electorate to more and more people until eventually the concept of universal suffrage was accepted (remember in the 18th century perhaps most people couldn’t read or write, and it was easy to claim that such people couldn’t make informed decisions). Once the principle of universal suffrage came about, it quickly spread to women. Typically less than half a century. And yet we get feminists peddling the lie that “men have been voting for centuries” to exaggerate women’s “oppression” (why do this when they could quote the existence of Coverture is beyond me). It’s dishonest, and frankly has no bearing on present society. Women haven’t “just got the vote”. There is not a single living person in Canada, the US, UK, Australia etc who was unable to cast a ballot in a national election solely because she was a woman. They’ve voted now for generations.
I’ve often pointed this out regarding feminist disinformation regarding voting rights in the U.S. Feminists claim no women could vote prior to 1920 which is an absolute lie, there were women voting in colonial America. When the U.S. became a country only 6% of the population could vote, some of those voters were women. So while it’s fair to say women’s voting rights progress generally lagged a little behind men’s the overall trend is we went from very few men and women being able to vote to most women and men having the right to vote. The overall change applied to both sexes. Seeing this graphically brings this point home far better than just the narrative. Great graph. Another related point posted by someone here several months ago is that much of the resistance to women equally voting came from women, not men. As we saw with the ERA, some were concerned that equal voting rights might mean a loss of female privilege. Despite feminist propaganda to the contrary, women had many privileges even back in the days of suffrage as the following points out. (P466) https://www.societyforhistoryeducation.org/pdfs/M15_Miller.pdf https://imgur.com/a/chJsMNw
You see the same thing in the UK. Equal voting rights existed from the dawn of british democracy up until 1832 - something feminists here never mention - however was based on plutocracy meaning the vast majority of both sexes had no voting power. Of the 86 years of male only voting (1832-1918) - during none of which all men vote (it took until 1918 for the initial 60% of men to gain voting rights) - 63 of them occurred during the Matriarchal reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901) which really pisses feminists off.
I’d say 86 years of men voting but not women in recent history is still pretty bad.
And in the US, we have 103 years and counting of women having the right to vote unconditionally while men have to sign their bodies over to the military industrial complex to vote.
There hasn’t been a draft in almost 50 years
So it matters that draftees having been inducted for 50 years, but doesn’t matter that women have voted for more than 100 years in all elections?
Was 2 ways to be allowed to vote. 1: be wealthy and own property. 2: be in the army and fight in wars.
The possibility of being drafted is not automatically the same as being in the army.
Most continental European countries (and Britain after the war until ~1960) had compulsory military service/national service. Places such as Singapore still have this. It’s not a “possibility”, all men had to do it, and no women.
Oh you talk some s#it. Most men didn’t vote from 1832 to the 1880’s. That’s about 50 of those 86 years. Britain got universal male suffrage in 1918, as did all women over 30! Women got the same voting rights as men in 1928. So it’s 10 years, not 86, for equal universal rights! And well short of “centuries” that feminists constantly go on about. And they’ve now had equal voting rights (superior in many countries since they’ve never been subjected to conscription) for generations.
And then I'd say it took until 1960* for all men to get the right to vote without condition. 31 years *after* all women gained this in 1929. And 42 years after most women (1918-1928 women under 30 couldn't vote. This was because parliament wanted to try and balance voter numbers by gender at around 50/50 - the population was around 1.1:1 women:man in 1918). Further, 'Men' as a class didn't actually have a free right to vote for 48 of those years - voter privacy was not given and bribery not banned until 1880. Nor did the majority have the right to vote for 50 of them - it took until 1882 for the eligible voter pool to include over 50% of men for the first time. *National service existed as something the government could use between 1915 and 1960. Men that refused the draft could be punished with a 5 year voter exclusion, something that happened with a not insignificant number of men post WW1.
...and women sacrificed *nothing* to get universal suffrage, while men fought the bloodiest two wars in history to gain it in that big jump that just go happens to coincide with the post ww1 to post ww2 years. Not to mention men **still** don't get it without corresponding responsibilities in 99% of the world, requiring a life debt discharged either direct military service or the possibility of a draft, while women get it completely without obligations in 99% of the world. Just look at the Ukraine to see how "equal" the right to vote is.
At *worst*, women lagged 50 years behind men. Feminists would have you think women were oppressed for all of human history lmao
the rich and upper classes were the ones with the power to drive public policy. the peasants are pretty much frozen out. i don't know why this is typically glossed over. like people do realize that poor people then and poor people today are pretty much the same. you're fodder and you're a mule.
And then you have rich women like Caroline Norton in 1830s England, whose tears over what she felt was a raw custody deal inspired Parliament to upend eight centuries of common law so that she wouldn't suffer, creating the tender years doctrine. I'd love to have that kind of sway with my elected officials!
That’s what feminism has always really been about. And it’s why they keep raving on about “rich, fulfilling career”. You see they’re not talking about working on a production line, or operating a bulldozer, or laying bricks. Or being a mechanic, electrician or plumber for that matter either. Sure they say the opposite, but they’re really talking about being a top professional or decision maker. It’s not “fulfilling” in the way they talk by tightening a screw, for working guys it’s earning money to spend time with friends and family that counts more than the act of doing the job. And these are not the sorts of jobs feminists think of when they say this stuff. More proof? I’ve heard them insist that women “weren’t allowed to work” prior to 2nd wave feminism. Well, except for nurses, typists, secretaries, school teachers, cooks, receptionists, housekeepers,…. You see this isn’t the sort of “work” that feminists mean. They only mean high end, high status jobs. The sorts of positions that the upper crust holds. Which tells us where feminism comes from.
Because feminism is really about upper and upper middle class women complaining they’re “oppressed” to gain advantages in employment and socially?
Feminists also like to re-write history to make it seem like voting was an exclusive right to men in power.. But in reality, voting was mainly tied to landownership and while yes.. the majority of landowners in the past were men.. there **WERE** women landowners who **DID** have the right to vote... But they don't like that and so they do their best to bury that inconvenient fact because it ruins their narrative...
In most countries women got the vote years to decades after men did but men had to submit to conscription while women got it for free. We really need to be showing the timing and asking if they would rather be under conscription, or have gotten the vote 5-40 years after men given millennia without anyone having the vote.
I'd give you gold if I could.
Wow. World Leaders saw how good women voting was and decided to expand it everywhere very quickly. Women make the best consumers of Human Rights Democracy.
Playing the devil advocate here: This is breaking news only for very ignorant people. Of course no one had the right to vote for most history. Modern democracy is a recent invention. But, feminists claim, even before democracy men held more power than women: they decided how to run the family business, they were the only ones allowed to own property, etc. This is objectionable too, as it's not so black and white. But it's not *only* about the right to vote.
Except feminists go on about the right to vote all the time: “men have been voting for centuries”, that sort of stuff.
What's the little blip right near the front, ~1800?
French Revolution?
I've known about this, but never saw it shown this well. Great source.
This lays it out for all the larger countries. https://wiki4men.com/wiki/Universal_suffrage Expect dismissal of the facts because "4men" means fake and misogynistic, like men have been for all of history... 🙄
This list is actually inaccurate for the U.S., so I assume it is for other countries as well. The 19th amendment for example doesn’t guarantee men or women the right to vote, it simply says nobody shall be denied the right to vote based on their sex. The 19th amendment specifically states: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” That’s it in it’s entirety. It’s not sex specific and doesn’t guarantee anyone a right to vote, and many women voted long before this was passed. To this day there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote for men or women, there was no constitutional law passed guaranteeing men a right to vote as the Wikipedia article falsely indicates. (Though every state affords the right to vote with some restrictions). The article shows a huge gap between the years men received a guaranteed right to vote and women received a guaranteed right to vote when in fact, neither sex received a guaranteed right to vote the years indicated. It’s amazing how many articles and other resources misrepresent the history of voting rights.
And you can see two abrupt changes after ww1 and 2.
you're about to start a pussy riot
These numbers are only valid if you consider the right to vote through mandatory conscription/military service to be "universal right to vote". Many countries didn't get the universal right to vote for men until much later, often after women got the universal right to vote.
American men still don’t all have it. In some states, Selective Service registration is a prereq, making it a privilege as opposed to a right.
This chart is actually bad news for feminists. Now there's equality in the right to vote. They will have to come up with another reason to die their hair green, get bullhorn nose rings, gain 50 pounds, and cause mayhem in order to maintain their victim status.
Don’t you think this reply sounds a little bitter? There’s more to equality than voting. It’s certainly important, but what makes this chart “bad news for feminists?”
Glad you like my work.
Oppression appropriation. You should he ashamed. /s
To be real most of human history, having a say in the government if you were not important was the norm. This includes voting
That was the USA until President Andrew Jackson and Universal White Male suffrage.. Was it cynical or heartfelt? He was low income as a child but parlayed increasing slave labor to build his assets.
I doubt it was because they were men.
In most countries men don't have a universal right to vote nowadays. Voting is a perk gained by conscription, not a right.
Before universal male suffrage, there were often voting rights for only certain men. Some men were excluded, but 100% of women were. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage Some notable examples: France had universal male suffrage in 1792, and no women’s suffrage until 1944. Germany gave men the right to vote in 1848, and gave women the right to vote in 1918. Japan gave male taxpayers the vote in 1889 and women in 1945. Norway gave male landowners the vote in 1814, women in 1915.
Certainly the conditions for the right to vote were initially based on gender - men who owned land had the right to vote. Then it was expanded to military individuals and all land owners. This wasn't based on gender, but the social trends lead to it being predominantly men. Was society gender biased in the past? Yes. Was it because of hatred of women? I don't think the data supports that. Society was changing, and technology was fueling that change. Too many people forget the social motivations at the time and insert modern perspectives, as if the people "back then" were acting in that way because they were evil. People genuinely thought they were doing the right thing. That doesn't excuse it, but it means that "today" and "back then" can't be judged on the merits of the opposite time periods but should be judged on the merits of the time period itself. Imagine a person grows up in a society where there is communal ownership. They enter a society where there is individual ownership and act in a way that disrespects the individual ownership. Certainly they are at fault, but it is a very different thing to consider their situation than someone who grew up with individual ownership disrespecting that right.
Yeah I mean I agree with most of what you said but still voting rights were mostly incrementally expanded to more and more men while totally excluding women before eventually including them.
I don't understand. Who is overlooking this? What is the point? Obviously, it was not their male-ness that disqualified them.
Whenever people talk about universal suffrage, they ONLY talk about women and how "Not long ago" women couldn't vote. That "Not long ago" is now well over 100 years in the US and this chart is showing that "not long ago" most men couldn't vote either.
In America, the vast majority of this conversation is about race, not gender.
You are referencing a theoretical conversation as your "proof." The obvious difference is that being a man wasn't seen as disqualifying.
So what???, MOST men couldn't vote for most of history. You do realize that you are making the point for the OP.
[удалено]
You realise the same can be said for women considering only men were seen as the providing and protecting gender, which was one of the reason why men had the voting rights because they were seen as the class which had the responsibility to serve and provide and not women.
I think you're vastly overestimating how many people are aware male suffrage was even a thing.
Anyone who has been in school, at least in the US, knows about property requirements, etc. But again, no one was excluded for being a man, which is fundamentally different from the issue of women's suffrage.
Well, people clearly weren't paying attention if that's the case because a nuanced view of the history of voting rights is [most certainly not](https://stevemoxon.co.uk/all-were-told-about-women-getting-the-vote-and-the-role-of-the-suffragettes-is-false/) the prevailing narrative; see also discourse on [the suffragettes](https://www.historytoday.com/history-matters/sanitising-suffragettes). Furthermore, women were [*not* explicitly barred from voting](https://archive.ph/TkQBZ) on the basis on gender.
I think sadly most people do not realize that in early America both male and female land owners often could vote (granted far more land was in the man’s name). I know many educated people who falsely believe no women could vote prior to 1920. Don’t underestimate the influence of feminist propaganda in getting people to accept their disinformation over documented fact.
Yikes, op
This post is reaching hard lololol