676
We did
(piefed.cdn.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2025
676 points (100.0% liked)
Witches VS Patriarchy
1129 readers
802 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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?
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.
Office, I didn't take anything. I simply showed the man my revolver and he helpfully opened his wallet and gave me everything inside
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.
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.
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.
You simply don't get it.
When you don't have the right to vote, your actions that make the majority 'suffer' can be criminalized, and the people that can vote then have much, much more power to make YOU suffer than you do to hurt them. Look at Iran, or Afghanistan. Do you really think that women in those countries have the ability to affect any change in society at all without convincing the men, and the religious leaders first?
I assume you've read The Handmaid's Tale?
Women at the turn of the century simply did not have enough ability to effectively wield violence to overcome that kind of power. That's why you need to convince people that DO have power.
You don't convince those who dont consider you human hy begging.
Voting only matters if they already care what you, at least as a class/population, think. Voting is not power, no more than a text message or a crayon is. If you don't have something behind it, the currently powrful have no reason to give a single solitary fuck what you want.
Womens liberation did not come from the right to vote. You have it precisely backwards, and there is a left feminist anti-suffrage argument i wont hurt your lib headgristle with.
I say this as someone from part of a group it's very hard to keep from voting and expects men with guns to drag me out of bed and take me to the camps any month now: fuck you, you're why I'm going to die. Fuck you. I'm sure you're privileged enough to survive this, nobody as ferventlu pig ignorant as you could be otherwise, but it will almost be worth it if they get you too. I hope my emaciated corpsey ass is still around to see your shitlib "nobody could have known" panic when they dump you at whatever novelty shit hell concentration camp they build next.
Sincerely: fuck you. Your willful boot picking ignorance has put the round thats gonna kill me in the air. I'm just waiting for it to hit. Mostly alone, because you scum are still obsessed with your juromantic rituals, and im kind of expecting to be snitched out for existing.
Well this is "ally" in the liberal, within-the-system sense of the word. That's still what most people would see as an ally.
Most people who arent marginalized and dont need anything, yeah. Totally.
fully agree