Suffrage

8 Comments

1. Reply

   Wylde

   Posted April 4, 2011 at 7:19 PM

   It is clear to me that the right to vote has been perverted for political ends. Indeed, in America, I’ve always believed that the whole point of the American War for Independence was to empower the individual citizen over the primacy of the State. In order to do that, only certain people who have a stake in both their property and freedom would have a greater stake in the governance of the nation as a whole, which is why only landowners and businessmen could vote because most legislation had a greater impact on them than anyone else.

   Granting more people the right to vote has less to do with freedom and more to do with rigging elections. By undermining those who have the greater stake in a nation’s prosperity and policies, you increase the power of Government.

2. Reply

   Witold

   Posted July 17, 2011 at 10:45 PM

   The retirement age is the most visible example of male discrimination. But this doesn’t stop Polish feminist groups from complaining that female pensions are lower! Women have to work shorter and live much longer than men. In comparison they get more money total. Feminist fail to see ways in which males are worse of. The moment I heard about the retirement rules, draft and the lone fact that the feminist fail to notice these things was the moment I realized that feminists are not about equality – they are after supremacy.

3. Reply

   C Davison

   Posted February 6, 2012 at 2:53 PM

   I am researching an essay on the last 100 years of history on the English working man & how his story is always in the shadow of the ‘oppressed’ women.
   Loved the video but I can’t find a bibliography & need to reference some of the things so I can use them. Please can someone tell me were I can find the following bits of information as some of this differs to what I have in my text books (although I am not so naive that I don’t think history/politics books are not written with an agenda in mind);
   1) that the 1832 reform act says ‘land-owner’ (non gender) . My text book says it said ‘men’.
   2) This video doesn’t mention the 1884 3rd reform act, my books say that it enfrancised 5 million men, 2/3rd’s of male population (only v poorest, insane, criminal & living with employers, e.g. valets, couldn’t vote). Hope they could (bit of solidarity) but would love to argue that like the piece said, policeman & WW1 soldiers didn’t have the vote either). Tried to bring this up in the group & was shouted down, was told that soldiers did have the vote & the 1918 reform act was primarily set up as the soldiers had lost their vote due to not been a UK resident & this was changed so the returning soldiers would be able to vote in the 1918 election (held just after the reform act was passed.
   If someone could help me with this – that would help a lot

   • Reply

     manwomanmyth  in reply to C Davison

     Posted February 8, 2012 at 10:41 PM

     Your best bet for much more detail on voting is chapter 8 of “the Woman Racket” by Steve Moxon. It goes into detail on the vagaries of the vote and the wilful misunderstandings we have about it today.

     You should keep in mind the overriding truth of our history as regards the rights of women: whenever a system of living began to impact negatively on women, it got changed. Quickly. Contrast that with the lengths of time and efforts required to improve the lot of men.

     Regarding your questions:

     1) No idea about the wording at that level of detail. You need to remember that the salient purpose of the act was to increase the tax base (to pay for the Napoleonic wars). Income Tax was introduced and so the franchise had to be extended to a new class of people – but still only c200,000 new voters were added to a voting base of c400,000.

     The Reform Acts were not about ‘freedom’, they were about ‘taxation’. Only the 1928 Act represented a change from this philosophy. So, if the Act said ‘men’ it’s because only men paid taxes and only some men at that. The idea that this was somehow to specifically exclude women is anachronistic nonsense (i.e. the misinterpretation of the typical PC historian)

     2) The 1884 Act did not have the dramatic effect on voting ability your books suggest. I have to say, it pisses me off what passes for history textbooks in virtually any area to do with the roles of men and women – it is conditioning and training in female-victimhood which is simply unsupportable.

     Anyway, despite the 1884 enfranchisement, the adult men who could vote were still in the minority. Lodgers and men living in multiple occupancy homes were all excluded. Ostensibly, 65% of men were registered to vote, about 7.7 million men. But about 500,000 of these were plural votes (rich businessmen had 2 votes, one for a business one for a residence). So that’s 60% left. Add to this constituency registration issues (bureaucratic) due to a mobile work force and the reality is that less than 50% of men had the right to vote and the ability to cast it.

     Only in 1910 did the proportion of men who could vote finally exceed those who could not. But not by the margins your ‘textbooks’ will tell you.

     Then, due to WW1, even in 1918 it was still the case that less than 50% of men had a usable vote. The soldiers who were eligible to vote did lose their vote due to being abroad at war and their proxy votes – where they were able to make them – were typically never processed. Even by the 1918 election, many thousands of men were still abroad in battle zones and effectively disenfranchised. It is a strong likelihood that despite the age restriction, more women than men voted in the 1918 election.

     Some soldiers had the vote, most didn’t simply because most conscripts were poor and so did not qualify. Soldiering did not confer voting rights. Same holds true today in a way, because 16 year olds in the UK can join the army, but 18 years is the minimum voting age. Soldiering has no impact on the right to vote now, or then.

     Also bear in mind that women could stand for parliament at age 21 in 1918, showing that the age restriction was not about oppressing women but it fulfilled several purposes, mainly to do with ‘qualifying’ for the vote (men qualified via their work) and also the fears of the government as to what the female vote would do. It was a fear of change, not the oppression of women.

     Good luck getting any of this through the ideologically-biased skulls of your teachers. They want, need and are determined to maintain the idea of female-victimhood, no matter how inaccurate it may be, how false a history it portrays, or how blatantly misandric it is. Lies and half-truths about our history form the bedrock of Feminism, and Feminists will fight to defend the indefensible.

     I hope to interview a major historian later this year, to put the fallacies to rest in video.

     • Reply

       C Davison  in reply to manwomanmyth

       Posted February 13, 2012 at 10:21 AM

       I appreciate your help with this – your obviously a well educated and articulate man.
       I have a couple of questions that I hope you can help me out with
       1) Income tax came in 1799, Waterloo was 1815 & Napolean was dead by 1821. I dn’t understand how I can argue that the 1832 reform act was introduced to tax/fight the Napoleanic wars? Also – I thought that income tax was applied to those with an income regardless of their right to vote. If you can let me know your source, that would be helpful.
       I have so far focussed on the reform riots & Charles Grey – but would love to get this point across of male suffrage/ suffragette propogenda etc
       2) What happened in 1910 to shift the balance in who had the vote?
       Many Thanks & again, if you could send me the reading list that was used for this video – that would be excellent.

       • Reply

         manwomanmyth  in reply to C Davison

         Posted February 13, 2012 at 10:48 AM

         To be frank, I get this a lot where people press me for sources and answers and lists, without what I regard as due diligence before asking.

         Have you found and read the chapter in Moxon’s book?

         It doesn’t matter when the Napoleonic wars ended, Britain was near a billion pounds in debt by the end of it. That debt needed to be paid off or at least serviced and that’s why income tax came in. I don’t mean to be brusque, but I’m busy and this stuff is easy to find out. [EDIT: The British navy cost money to build and prepare both in ships and recruiting/press-ganging/training men. That expenditure took place long before Waterloo and we have effectively been paying for the Napoleonic wars ever since, as our national debt has only been added to, never cleared.]

         The reference to 1910 is not that significant, it was simply that this was when the estimate of men who could vote rose above 50% i.e. it took over 20 years from the Act for the numbers to start to reflect the supposed immediate effect of the act, and then only barely. People will say: “from 1884 65% or men got the vote” etc. Not remotely correct.

         Get Moxon’s book, also look into Martin Pugh particularly “March of the Women” and “Electoral reform in war and peace”. Expensive, but worth it (or, of course, use a library).

         Good luck.

         • C Davison  in reply to manwomanmyth

           Posted February 13, 2012 at 3:33 PM

           Sorry mate – you have been very helpful.
           Thanks

4. Reply

   C Davison

   Posted February 10, 2012 at 10:27 AM

   That is brilliant – thanks.
   I’ll get hold of Moxon’s book. There must be more books that put forward the same view, as this is historical fact? I have spoken to my tutor and they are happy for me to use this topic as the subject of my essay but has advised (strongly) that any argument I put forward that is against the norm while be open to criticism so must make sure that all points are well referenced and properly annotated. If someone could give me any ideas on what other books I can use, this would help me out a lot.
   Thanks