>>42270 There were always parts of it that were about nothing but hating men and wanting their cake but eating it too. See this prominent piece of British propaganda, and the whole "white feather" movement.
One of the criticisms of feminism is that their early goals involved increasing the size of government. In the United States in particular, women dominated the temperance movement under both "OMG THINK OF HOW WEAK WOMEN ARE" as well as "WE DESERVE A VOICE BECAUSE WE PAY TAXES, BAN SATAN'S DRINK" or some shit.
The shitstorm that is feminism today existed from day one, even the fact that it was dominated by white, middle class women.
Feminism had positive and negative aspects. One negative aspect I can think of is how greater number of women entering workforce lowered the wages for everyone. There was a woman who spoke about this, but I forgot the name. In 50's, a man earned as much as man and woman earn today.
>>42270 It would have been much better if they received a good education since many women at the time barely had an education so basically at the time it just caused more idiots to vote but for today it's better since they receive some sort of education
>>42825 Just simplistic things, really. Feminist criminology acknowledges that men and women are different and tries to explain for these differences when it comes to crime. For example, roughly 87% of people in prison are men in the United States are men and 13% are women. Some theories try to reason that as gender roles continue to mix, women will become increasingly "masculine" and commit as much crime as men, while others suggest that since women were in charge of raising children, natural selection resulted in women being predisposed to avoiding dangerous behavior.
>>43121 True, and after WW2, we start seeing state welfare, which means that again even if women cannot support themselves, the state will do it for them, no husband required.
So, I don't which events caused the other events, but I make the point that feminism as we have it today could not exist in a pre-industrial society. It exists solely because we are so rich and fat that women can afford to tell men to go fuck themselves.
>>42818 Don't want to get to far off topic, but modern women have access to education, and their modern movement certainly isn't any more respectable. Their drive towards these behaviors is likely independent of education. The other likely alternative is that modern education cultivates this movement. Either way, something is off with feminism, whatever time we find it in, with first wave being practically terrorists at times.
>>42701 I'm sure you can google that, but from what I know, First wave stopped after they got the vote, second wave started sometime in the 60s, got really popular in the 70s and came to a head in the 80s with things like workplace equality and sexual harassment law
>>43337 For a long time religion acted as the preventative measure. It was a moral authority brought down from tradition, that enforced to people what they already knew - that we are miserable without marriage and children to surround ourselves with.
It is really just tantamount to fatness and greed. The same way people eat too much even though it makes them miserable, people will divorce and give their children shitty lives.
I'm not religious, so I can't really defend it. I just see the evolutionary psychology of it all in pity
>>43554 >Have they ever been needed? Yes, why do you think they exist? That shit is primeval, living in caves, so basic it's ingrained tens of thousands of years later shit. Men: physically stronger, go hunt for food and protect women and children Women: able to bear children, not as strong as men, stay home and make sure nothing eats the children
>>43410 The system is discriminatory by the mere fact that men are inprisoned at a much higher rate than women, but it's a discriminatory effect without discriminatory intent. This sort of discrimination happens all the time and isn't inherently a bad thing. Criminology seeks to explain why this discrimination exists. Feminist criminology seeks to explain why women aren't in the men's position when it comes to incarceration.
>>43554 They were, because women are of more value biologically than the male and take up more resources. Men are also physically stronger on average. Hence, gender roles formed naturally to keep women out of harms way and make productivity more efficient by focusing on male labor. A society can recover from a lack of men, but rarely from a lack of women. From there, it formed from simple pragmatism to outright patriarchy
>>43620 >ywn live in the world where women are retarded whiners because religion didn't literally oppress them for thousands of years They wouldn't be bitching about gender roles if thousands of years of Abrahamic tradition didn't reinforce them
>>43397 Inequality is anything but real. It's just an indicator that other things might be amiss. It's those things which need addressing, which is why the first two waves were justified, and not the third (which seems to treat inequality as a problem in and of itself).
>>42270 Feminism is justified. It's not fair to put women down because of their gender, and we should have equal rights.
Modern western feminists go too far focusing on problems which don't exist. Much of the world still sees women treated like shit and abused but they don't care about that, just about some tits in a video game.
>>43667 so? every movement has crazies. that doesn't negate my point that the first and second wave overall were fighting against real issues. in fact the first two waves can be clearly defined by their goals (fighting for voting rights, fighting for workplace and sexual inequality), it's only the third wave where goals start to get nebulous and go off into different directions
Second was largely, but had seeds of what would go wrong even then - witness the support to figures like Dworkin, the TERF movement, and the creation of highly reformist "feminist" institutions who divorced women's issues from class struggle and embraced outright bigots to fight the patriarchy. Still, they had meaningful accomplishments which on the whole probably created fairer, more equal conditions.
Third wave "feminism" isn't even about women's rights, it's about promoting authoritarianism on the internet.
>>43789 >women less productive in the workplace >pay lower taxes due to shitting out kids >demand more and more entitlements >single moms galore >tax base collapses due to affirmative action hires being chosen over the more productive men >Bernie gets elected >even more gibs me dat for women
>>43704 The causal link really isn't that clear. Perhaps religion just plugged the moral gap that lead to marriage seeming like a good idea for survival, which it obviously is, for the same reason not killing and stealing and sleeping around is a good idea.
Again, they are bitching merely because they can afford to do so
>>43789 Plummeting birth rates, high unemployment and hordes of violent third world immigrants which are leading to masses of young frustrated men with nothing to do which kills the society. All these follow from allowing women to vote and work.
>>44005 I'm not saying that religion is the only cause, far from it, it's just that religious texts reinforce a patriarchal mindset where men are inherently more important than women, and since these ideas are written in sacred texts, the mentality sticks for generations, and is even encouraged
>>44007 >Plummeting birth rates How can we be sure this is linked to feminism? Are men not as involved in bringing children into the world?
>high unemployment Again, not feminism related
>hordes of violent third world immigrants which are leading to masses of young frustrated men with nothing to do which kills the society. If this is a problem for you, then you look at your politicians, many of whom are male
>All these follow from allowing women to vote and work. I don't see this
>>42701 >What's the official time periods when the feminist waves begin/end?
Here's some info about what I remember learning from my history courses and my women's studies courses so it may not be 100% accurate, but in general it's what scholars agree the waves began/ended.
The first wave began with Mary Wollstonecraft's book: A Vindication of the Rights of Men; A Vindication on the Rights of Women written at the very end of the 18th century, approximately 1798. This book goes over the inequalities that she saw between men and women and how women were often seen as the weaker sex, the fairer sex, and how this was wrong. She also wrote about how women would compete against one another to get ahead and this was tied with their looks. She gave examples of mothers competing with their daughters, or older women competing with women younger than themselves so they can keep up the attentions of the husband, of friends, of society and of men. This book sparked the first wave feminist movement that took place during the 19th century and ended in the beginning of the 20th century. What most people recall them wanting was the right to vote, but they also called for prohibition because they saw men spending their whole paycheck on booze as morally reprehensible especially when this man would come home to beat his wife. The majority of it ended around the time that women got the right to vote in their respective states and countries which would be 1910s - 1920s but the movement existed to call for prohibition. Around the Great Depression and WWII the first wave movement didn't exist in any major way since everyone was focused on the war effort.
The second wave began at the start of another book, (surprise, surprise) which is The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir in approximately 1949. This book details the woman's experience throughout history and goes through different perspectives, such as the straight guy's point of view of women and details what is wrong with society (1/2)
>>43933 They're called voting rights NOW because this retarded society thinks of every issue in terms of entitlement now. They were never rights back in the day because not everyone had the "right" including most men. And they weren't privileges either because there was nothing you could do to earn them, you weren't going to go from indentured servitude or enslavement to being a wealthy land owner.
They only became a privilege when access was extended to the common person, but even now you can having your voting privileges taken away by becoming a felon. It's not a right, it's definitively a privilege.
>>43987 >children of single parents more likely to become criminals >more likely to use drugs >more likely to underperform in school >more likely to become single parents themselves >suck off government teat >trap man into paying a gorillion in babybux
>>44170 Even if I agree, this can be said for the average man as well. Yet they have the right to vote, and lead. Unless you are asserting that men are naturally smarter than women? Because I vigorously disagree if so
>>42701 >>44196 (2/2) Society's treatment of women. Second wave feminism was about key issues like equal pay, equal opportunity and that women should be allowed to enter the workforce and have reproductive rights over their body. Although birth control rights and distribution was a fringe element in the first wave which resulted in women like Emma Goldman being arrested for it, in the second wave it was key. Birth control and abortion is a good thing, and women should be allowed to be divorced and not be a social parraia. This movement ended in the 80s, when third wave feminism began in the early 90s. As the ending of second wave feminism and the beginning of third wave feminism happened less than 25 years ago, I'm not going to detail them too much.
I see feminist waves as real wave. They have slow beginnings, reach their apex, and then slowly decline. I hope this helps!
>>44158 >Are men not as involved in bringing children into the world?
Not anymore they're not, because fathers don't have any real rights
The woman can decide at any time for any reason that she doesn't want the father around and the kids become her kids, not their kids.
The fact that fewer and fewer men want to get married is a direct result of this, because there's nothing in it for men anymore. Seriously, you have literally nothing to gain from marrying a woman or having a kid with her. It will only end badly for you.
>>44158 >How can we be sure this is linked to feminism? Are men not as involved in bringing children into the world? Because after campaigning women got the options to work in addition to benefits from government which makes needing a man useless and breeding an option which can clearly be seen from the statistics. Men are not as involved in bringing children into the world both because of biology and because of the laws.
>Again, not feminism related ...You really can't see how doubling the work force could lead to unemployment? Are you a woman?
>If this is a problem for you, then you look at your politicians, many of whom are male Most of the campaigners for unhealthy immigration are females as are notable amount of politicians. When I look at the people behind this shit, I look at Merkel.
>>44262 No it shouldn't. /pol/tards only talk about how awful feminism is while talking about extremists in the third wave and either ignore or are willfully ignorant of the first and second waves. Feminism is a social movement and social movements are /hist/ material.
The average person is working for the average person's interest. A small elite working for the average person might be better - but isn't that representative democracy anyway? A small, unaccountable elite will seek only to enrich themselves at majority expense.
Yes, a movement telling women to do whatever they want and that being a slut is cool and empowering has nothing to do with women getting knocked up before they have any hope of properly caring for a child
>>44267 >The woman can decide at any time for any reason that she doesn't want the father around and the kids become her kids, not their kids. That's literally a lie, the most you can say is that in custody battles the courts usually side with the mother
When a couple separates, custody is nearly always given to the mother. The only single dads out there are usually widowers.
The "single parent" issue is almost entirely attributable to women because the only way a living woman could ever lose her kids would be by openly and dramatically fucking up. There are literally meth head single moms who go undetected and don't have their kids taken from them.
>>44284 The biased courts and priviliged situation of women compared to men that has been adjusted though decades of feminist lobbying is indeed a feminist issue. Women not being dependent on men which leads to "lol i like other dicks more see you by btw i also took the kids" is also very clearly a feminist issue.
>>44211 Not smarter, they just see things differently. Women are far more concerned with feelings. It makes us extremely weak to external aggression. It creates a lot logical incohesion, where all perceived "unfairness" must be eradicated, to the point where more unfairness sprouts as soon as you try to stamp it out
I am altogether sceptical of the contribution women make. Men created a lot of war and misery, but nevertheless largely got us to where we are today
>>44317 >a movement telling women to do whatever they want
That isn't what feminism is. First wave feminism was decidedly tied to Christian principles and desired to make it more possible for women to keep their roles of the moral teachers of the world. It's almost like you've never studied feminism and just find extremist outliers of the movement to be offensive.
>>44439 Well of course it is exactly because of that. Women being able to work instead of fulfilling their natural duty and women being less dependent on men not only plummets birthrates and is unhealthy for society, it makes both men and women less happy.
>>44471 >>44478 How would you propose the courts decide custody in the even that there's no major problem with either parents, their marriage just doesn't work out? I mean yes obviously the court is biased but is that wrong? Women tend to be more nurturing, and are often better caretakers, especially when young children are concerned. I don't think there's really any fair way to decide who gets the kids, but women have a bit of an argument, men don't really have any. You'd have to split custody right down the middle.
>>44560 I'm going to play edgy anarchist's advocate and say that if you think feminism is a mistake because of the societal impacts but you don't think oppressing women is the right way to go either, then it's society that you have a problem with.
>>44537 Funny how every feminist prophet and holy speaker says all these extreme things going back for decades, but the extremism is somehow "new"
>First wave feminism was decidedly tied to Christian principles and desired to make it more possible for women to keep their roles of the moral teachers of the world. Right, which is why everything since the beginning of the second wave has been decidedly anti-religious and critical of the entire concept of morality
>>44574 I'm pretty sure there's a study that found out that the kids of single fathers generally succeed in life in pretty much every way more than the kids of single mothers.
But this thread revolves more around the feminism side so through that lense the most important thing is that without feminism we never would be in a situation where 60% of marriages end and splitting up kids is a daily occurrence. Empowered women start 75% of divorce processes by the way. Not a surprise when through years of feminist agenda we're in a situation where they know they can get not only the kids but shitload of money AND alimony.
Just say >he abused/assaulted/raped me >taken at face value, guy essentially has to prove this didn't happen instead of making her prove anything >guy is fucked forever unless he has concrete proof that he didn't
>>44284 I'm not him, but you could probably say the rise in single parenthood is related to the "liberal ethics on relationships". >"The objective in life and happiness is found on sexual pleasure. If you don't have sex you are a depressing creature that others should make fun of. All problems are caused by sexual repression."
When people have those values, where they self worthy depends on sex and where if they don't have an amazing sexual life they should be depressed and look for new partners... It is obvious that this kind of problems will exist. You will have divorces. Cheating. men not wanting to marry so they can have sex with more women.
Notice that the blame on this is not on feminism on that, or at least not mostly on feminism.
The problem is... ...Sex positive feminism. It is hedonism on roids. People will have sexual gratification in the short run, but it will destroy the lives of many women and men in the long run.
>>44631 Not him but I don't see the situation where women and men both take care of their natural duties with women keeping up the house and giving birth to babies while men work and go to wars as oppressing to either party. Definitely not just to women.
>>42270 Feminism, like many movements, was never 100% clean. There were crazies during the first and second wave too. Like those women threatening to burn buildings and bomb things. A lot of them also got incredibly butthurt when blacks got the right to vote. There was also the SCUM Manifesto and that one chick that tried to assassinate Andy Warhol
>>44574 >but women have a bit of an argument, men don't really have any. confirmed femanon who leaked out of /soc/
have you ever considered that men and women have different traits and qualities which are all valuable in a child's development?
the fair way to decide custody is to split it as evenly as possible. the only exceptions should be provable cases of negligence or abuse by one parent or the other.
the man should only be forced to pay support if the separation is occurring as a result of abuse. if the woman wants out of the relationship just because she's bored or found someone she likes better it should be her problem.
>>44439 This is one of the ideologies we see more and more. When were mothers not respected as people? Mothers have always been practically worshipped as the ones who give us life etc etc. It's unequivocally the most important thing a person can do, and only women can do it
Women stopped giving birth because they are no longer respect motherhood. They are just workers like everyone else. They make a living, that's all that matters to them.
>>44642 You are very ignorant of the history of feminism, aren't you? I feel as though I am lecturing an angry monkey.
The second wave began by Simone de Beauvoir's book The Second Sex which is a moral relativist and what I would argue a post-modernist text which is why many radicals in the movement were against tradition and sought to change it. It doesn't change the fact that the majority in the movement did not feel this way. It sounds to me like you dislike post-modernism t b h f a m >anti-religious Do you have any sources on this, bucko? There are always extremist outliers such as Emma Goldman in the first wave, but second wave didn't seek out against religion. They wanted women to be able to choose when they have children (birth control and abortion) and wanted both sexes to have a choice of divorce should the need arise. Before that, sure it was an option, but if it happened polite society frowned upon it, to put it lightly.
>>44623 What is third-wave feminism to you if not the current wave? What distinguishes the two? Tumblr feminism to me seems like a logical progression of the anti-male, forced equality of outcome thinking that's been growing since the '90s.
>>44814 >>no counter-argument You don't deserve one if you are willfully ignorant. If you have it out against feminism at least have the common courtesy to know what the movement is before you hate on it.
He had a kid when he was 16 (possibly conceived when Keef was 15), with a woman who was in her 20s
She has custody of the kid and he has to pay child support even though this woman raped him according to virtually every state law on statutory rape. She was beyond the age difference gap
>but he probably wanted it
Doesn't change the law, statutory rape has nothing to do with consent. I've even seen people use this excuse with boys as young as 11. Whether or not the younger person wanted the sexual contact is irrelevant to the law.
So basically, not even being wealthy will save a man from the bias in the court system.
Is a male rights movement justified, /his/? Feminists always have claimed feminism helps men, but I've not read anything post like 1905 with a convincing argument. Basically it was that men would be freed from courtship and the slavery of having a family. But basically the mainstream movements have feminists wanting to keep benefits under a "patriarchal" system while getting more benefits that shouldn't work.
You want equal pay? Sign up for the draft. Be actually treated like a man in the eyes of the law.
>>44942 >and plenty of couples still go that traditional route. Not enough to keep the birthrate over 2.0 in many countries. And this is bad for society.
>once again the only people who really complain about this are /r9k/ and /pol/-tards, not men and women who've had normal relationships Or people who care for the future of Western civilization. That has always been a men's jobs though, women don't have to care, they will be taken care of even if society falls. I'm in a relationship btw.
It wasn't justified or necessary. Feminist's stated goals were simply liberal ones, and would have come about whether a few women loudly complained or not. We didn't need educated blacks to come out and say that slavery was wrong for us to realize it was unbecoming of a liberal society, and just the same we didn't need upper middle class women to point out the problem in having citizens not having equal rights. The most powerful people in the women's rights movement were men. If 2/3 of the nearly all-male congress didn't want women to vote, they would not have been able to vote.
All feminism really did was color these liberal goals with bullshit. So, for instance, women get the right to vote, but without having the obligation of conscription, which was the stated basis for giving men the right to vote. Feminists want to hold on to the advantages of being female and take the advantages of being male without any of the obligations males have.
You're points are stupid and show how ignorant you are of the movement at large. The majority of feminists did not want to magically have the exact same rights of men in first wave feminism, and still upheld very old, conservative and traditional Judeo-Christian values, as did their husbands. They saw suffrage as a moral battle so they would be better equipped to be moral teachers of their children.
You're an un-educated fuckwit that has no inkling of how to /his/tory. If you look back at events and movements that happened hundreds of years ago, or even fifty years ago you must look at it in the lens of historical context. To do otherwise means that you are an idiot.
>>45001 It's pointless. Feminists have been shouting at garden plants for quite a while now. The systematic problems they complained about stopped being systematic over time for purely economic reasons. It had nothing to do with them.
A male rights movement will get you nowhere for the same reason. You might as well ask women you pass by to have sex with you. Eww, gross, you sick perv.
>>44877 I would call third wave a focus on mental and psychological equality, understandably an uphill battle, and many people still are fighting for this, however a large surge of women who think you have to go significantly stronger to achieve superiority through smear campaigns etc distinguishes the 2
>>45146 It didn't. They are the extreme post-modernist feminists m8. Every social movement and political movement have extremists in them, and pointing them out is meaningless and proves that you did a google search and went to wikipedia to prove your point. Congrats on using your first search engine and the beginning of your very first research project. You still got a ways to go there, buddy.
>>44985 you still haven't provided me sources that this is a common thing
>>45039 the denigration of housewives is definitely in a third wave feminism thing >my impression is that most women would rather be housewives raising a lot of kids your impressions don't mean anything
>>45012 not sure what source you want but people with higher income and education and similar levels to each other are substantially less likely to divorce
>>45142 >you must look at it in the lens Fuck off with this pretentious academia bullshit.
The toxicity of modern feminism is consistent with the history of the movement, even if what you're saying is correct it's irrelevant to feminism today. It's like you're trying to defend something that literally doesn't exist anymore.
The post you refuse to address doesn't even have anything to do with your shitposting
>>45240 How common it is is totally irrelevant, the simple fact is that the legal mechanism is there and therefore it can and will be exploited. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/
There are many more examples but no matter how many I provide you'll just plug your ears and bite the pillow while dykes peg you
>>45377 >How common it is is totally irrelevant are you stupid? you were the one arguing that this exploitation of the legal system is a widespread phenomena. i'm not plugging my ears, i'm asking for statistical evidence which you can't seem to provide
>>45408 i would actually be very interested in a survey like this, possibly divided across age groups and professions
The fact that feminism or other civil rights movements exist is more a testament to the flaws of our governing systems than the abuse that has been wrought on marginal(-ized) groups. When even so-called democracies end up as tyrannies (oligarchic and corporatist in our Western case), civil rights movements only fight against the symptoms rather than the cause: the governed having no say in their governance. And as always, it will end up with a revolution, with all the unfortunate consequences they always bring.
>>45265 >your shitposting So posts that don't agree with you are shitposting. lel Good to know.
The thing is you HAVE to look at history through a historical lens and look at it the way that people living at that time would have looked at it. You have to fit into those shoes and walk around and understand why they said what they did and why they did what they did in those times. If you look at the past expecting it to uphold modern values in modern times you're an idiot. >The toxicity of modern feminism is consistent with the history of the movement, even if what you're saying is correct it's irrelevant to feminism today. It's like you're trying to defend something that literally doesn't exist anymore. Oh, come on now, /pol/tard. You're ignorant of the movement as a whole and have already decided that it's toxic and horrible and was a blight on society without studying it in depth or looking at it through a historical lens. That's what stupid people do.
It's a flawed ideology from the start as it rejects biology and common sense. Women (as a whole) are less physically able and intelligent than men. Why do you think the most common job for them is a grade school teacher (as well as the least common being any sort of manual labourer)? Giving them equality is going against what nature intended.
>>45669 >legal structure in which this type of abuse is possible shouldn't be accepted. sure, i'll agree the current legal system is exploitable
>there's no way to tell how much of this is happening because women lie and courts believe them yes there is. for example, if we wanted to see whether men were treated unfairly in custody battles, we could compare the number of women with criminal records who got custody against the number of men (accounting for things such as whether the parent tried for custody, what the crimes were, etc...)
the fact is you're spewing bullshit with no evidence to back it up
>>45492 >You're ignorant of the movement as a whole and have already decided that it's toxic and horrible and was a blight on society without studying it in depth or looking at it through a historical lens.
It still doesn't make sense through a historical lense either
>why can't I be a magistrate/judge like daddy was? >why can't I vote, the men get to vote! and I shouldn't have to do anything for it either >I should be able to get divorced just because I'm bored, only allowing it for abuse is unfair >Now that there are safe and easy jobs available, I am suddenly interested in becoming part of the work force
And the female bell surve is considerably less so. And it is, in fact, shifted to the left (slightly)
On the basic premise of general intelligence for a general population this does indeed mean that women as a whole are less intelligent. The poster you replied to had not stated any amount quantified, but the facts are there to support him.
>>45763 >if we wanted to see whether men were treated unfairly in custody battles, we could compare the number of women with criminal records who got custody against the number of men (accounting for things such as whether the parent tried for custody, what the crimes were, etc...)
And where would you find such data? The census reports on custodial parents don't seem to include anything about crime
>>46062 >It's indisputable that the smartest people ever were all men. Well, not really though most of them have obviously been. When you also consider that men are also noticeably more competetitive, ambitious and willing to take risks, it makes the feminist imperiative of "all nice and important positions should have half of women" not only stupid but outright damaging to society.
>>45781 >Now that there are safe and easy jobs available, I am suddenly interested in becoming part of the work force To be fair, working class women have been in the workforce for a while before then doing shitty factory and farm labor. Feminism has always been run by and for the privileged. Now of course if someone is truly ambitious and wants to be a doctor that's their prerogative and they should have a right to pursue that goal. But the overwhelming majority of feminism though, is just women demanding men give them lot's more stuff in exchange for far less in return.
>>44574 >Women tend to be more nurturing, and are often better caretakers, especially when young children are concerned. I can see you are not biased and poisoned by gender roles. Your objectivity amazes me.
>>44083 Women receive lighter sentences for the same crimes and if you lived in the US you'd know that trying to get a woman executed from murdering her husband in cold blood is like pulling teeth. People literally protested and did the whole "She a good girl. She dindu nuffin!" even though it had already been proven that she was a heartless psychopath. Women can be just as evil as men but they are often punished less harshly if at all.
>>42270 It's all bullshit. Please, this is nonsense. What, you think there was any chance we could make it stop? This is the natural end of liberalism. As long as we have separation of Church and state, we are doomed.
>>49053 In fact "Mrs. Pankhurst toured the country, making recruiting speeches. Her supporters handed the white feather to every young man they encountered wearing civilian dress, and bobbed up at Hyde Park meetings with placards: "Intern Them All." "The least that men can do is that every man of fighting age should prepare himself to redeem his word to women" This woman was a prominent suffragette and feminist, shaming any man that didn't want to go die in World War 1. Those same women going "equality, give women the right to vote" were the ones demanding men to go and die for them.
>>43521 The problem with immigration is that there isn't really an end to it, while women entering the workforce is a comparatively one-and-done deal. In either case the influx of labor has an initial depressing effect, but since supply and demand are two sides of the same coin demand for goods/services goes back up when/if the initial influx has "settled in." The "women cutting wages" idea as a long-term phenomena ignores that demand is made up of goods and services that can be exchanged for the supply of other goods and services; "double the workforce, halve the wages" assumes constant demand for labor despite increased production and thus, you guessed it, demand.
I kinda want to see immigration halted just to isolate the effect of women working from immigrants and outsourcing.
Thread replies: 198 Thread images: 10
Thread DB ID: 69141
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.