Women, strength, liberation

[jkvlondon]

13 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

Yet, these women in these countries consider the Western path as something to aspire to; the light at the end of the tunnel, the solution to their problems, whereas those of us living in the West realise it may begin with noble intentions and a desire to right genuine wrongs, but it doesn't end with minimising inequality and arriving at the eventual parity of the sexes. The intelligentsia, in order to perpetuate and justify their existence, begin to manufacture solutions to non-existent problems such as sexist air-conditioning, shaming men for opening their legs on trains and buses, and other stupidity that are markers of a morally and psychologically moribund society ruled by cretins. For me, I'm forced to call into question the judgement and foresight of such women who keep tight-lipped over such incredibly damaging discourse, yet continue amplifying the voices of these same people. 

If you are sitting in the centre of hell , everywhere else looks like heaven . The as the examples biggest failure of those who achieved rights in the developed world they stopped at their countries borders and failed to address oppression of women across the globe for being who they are and their natural processes.

 

the point is just as men had to call out their own sex for oppressing females the opposite has to happen now females in privileged countries have to stop the oppression of men by vicious neoliberal banshees . Freedom for both is the responsibility of both - no one side can slack on the monitoring and curbing of excesses and liberty taking  .  Yes I've seen really ridiculous guys taking up both sides of their seat on the tube and it IS a nonsense to claim THAT is necessary but I also have my lads worried that even holding their legs loosely parallel would be considering spreading  and THAT is the other side of the nonsense coin . Be comfortable fine but don't inconvenience others unnecessarily  like the first guy

.  Yes I don't think I should be paid more than my male colleagues unless I actually AM doing more quality work than them in the same time scale, but I would feel the same about my female colleagues, if they are lazy and don't produce why should I be lumped with them when pay raises are being discussed and denied ? it is all grey areas .

 

[MisterrSingh]

1 hour ago, jkvlondon said:

If you are sitting in the centre of hell , everywhere else looks like heaven . The as the examples biggest failure of those who achieved rights in the developed world they stopped at their countries borders and failed to address oppression of women across the globe for being who they are and their natural processes.

 

the point is just as men had to call out their own sex for oppressing females the opposite has to happen now females in privileged countries have to stop the oppression of men by vicious neoliberal banshees . Freedom for both is the responsibility of both - no one side can slack on the monitoring and curbing of excesses and liberty taking  .  Yes I've seen really ridiculous guys taking up both sides of their seat on the tube and it IS a nonsense to claim THAT is necessary but I also have my lads worried that even holding their legs loosely parallel would be considering spreading  and THAT is the other side of the nonsense coin . Be comfortable fine but don't inconvenience others unnecessarily  like the first guy

.  Yes I don't think I should be paid more than my male colleagues unless I actually AM doing more quality work than them in the same time scale, but I would feel the same about my female colleagues, if they are lazy and don't produce why should I be lumped with them when pay raises are being discussed and denied ? it is all grey areas .

 

The problem is that the clamour for change isn't some organic, grassroots movement that's gained support and popularity on the ground among the common people before breaking into the mainstream consciousness. It originated as the brainchild of a particular demographic's upper-middle class academics - known for subversion throughout their entire history - which was eventually co-opted by corporations, organisations, and governments run by these same people or at least those sympathetic to their doctrine. What exactly is so radical and brave about a cause when the entire system of the Western machinery is behind it? At best, you're parroting and promoting philosophy that has done untold damage to the fabric of society on a deeper level than the superficial victories it's gained. Granted, it was a society that wasn't perfect by any means, but those leading the charge aren't interested in affecting positive change and building bridges; they want supremacy and vengeance for past grievances to be visited upon the vast majority who have never transgressed against womankind in even the vaguest way. Where do you see that ending? With Big Daddy State flexing his muscles in defense of his harem of agitators. Will it still be considered a victory fought for by women and lead by women when it'll be achieved through the overwhelming threat and power of the State looming ominously in the background?

[dallysingh101]

1 hour ago, MisterrSingh said:

The problem is that the clamour for change isn't some organic, grassroots movement that's gained support and popularity on the ground among the common people before breaking into the mainstream consciousness. It originated as the brainchild of a particular demographic's upper-middle class academics - known for subversion throughout their entire history - which was eventually co-opted by corporations, organisations, and governments run by these same people or at least those sympathetic to their doctrine. What exactly is so radical and brave about a cause when the entire system of the Western machinery is behind it? At best, you're parroting and promoting philosophy that has done untold damage to the fabric of society on a deeper level than the superficial victories it's gained. Granted, it was a society that wasn't perfect by any means, but those leading the charge aren't interested in affecting positive change and building bridges; they want supremacy and vengeance for past grievances to be visited upon the vast majority who have never transgressed against womankind in even the vaguest way. Where do you see that ending? With Big Daddy State flexing his muscles in defense of his harem of agitators. Will it still be considered a victory fought for by women and lead by women when it'll be achieved through the overwhelming threat and power of the State looming ominously in the background?

That might be the case now, but read up about the suffragettes - Anita Anand's book on Princess Sophia is a good introduction because you get a bit of Sikh historical knowledge as well.  Them lot weren't messing about, and most of the white male society of the time was against them. They did prison time for their cause, got force fed,  they were properly active unlike most men today who are too timid to be. 

[jkvlondon]

4 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

That might be the case now, but read up about the suffragettes - Anita Anand's book on Princess Sophia is a good introduction because you get a bit of Sikh historical knowledge as well.  Them lot weren't messing about, and most of the white male society of the time was against them. They did prison time for their cause, got force fed,  they were properly active unlike most men today who are too timid to be. 

force fed similarly to BHai Sahib Randir Singh ji, beaten with coshs, mowed down by police horses , shopped by husbands and co-workers , beaten and threatened with loss of home and children ... to have a legal status as citizens , to be legally recognised in their own right (husbands had to sign work contracts on their behalf)

[dallysingh101]

1 minute ago, jkvlondon said:

force fed similarly to BHai Sahib Randir Singh ji, beaten with coshs, mowed down by police horses , shopped by husbands and co-workers , beaten and threatened with loss of home and children ... to have a legal status as citizens , to be legally recognised in their own right (husbands had to sign work contracts on their behalf)

Some husbands supported their wives though! 

These are the words of one the husbands:

'I admire the rebel against injustice, man or women, because I know that it is to them that all real progress is due.'

Frank Sproson

 

Some husbands who supported their wives were also vilified and targeted too. Some apna pajama blokes could learn a thing or two from these women, who seem a helluva lot tougher than them. . 

[jkvlondon]

1 minute ago, dallysingh101 said:

Some husbands supported their wives though! 

These are the words of one the husbands:

'I admire the rebel against injustice, man or women, because I know that it is to them that all real progress is due.'

Frank Sproson

 

Some husbands who supported their wives were also vilified and targeted too. Some apna pajama blokes could learn a thing or two from these women, who seem a helluva lot tougher than them. . 

it is understandable that most husbands were not because they would lose the property rights they had wrested from their wives . True that there were  honest souls who could see the hardships and unfairness of it all  not denying but the majority view was biblical that a woman was property of the husband , That she should only defer to her husband and not speak counter to him.

[Ranjeet01]

There were suffragists and there were suffragettes. 

Suffragettes were quite violent,  they were involved in bombings.

[Ranjeet01]

6 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

Some husbands supported their wives though! 

These are the words of one the husbands:

'I admire the rebel against injustice, man or women, because I know that it is to them that all real progress is due.'

Frank Sproson

 

Some husbands who supported their wives were also vilified and targeted too. Some apna pajama blokes could learn a thing or two from these women, who seem a helluva lot tougher than them. . 

A lot of suffragettes were upper class women and were pis*** when men from the lower classes got to vote. 

[dallysingh101]

2 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

it is understandable that most husbands were not because they would lose the property rights they had wrested from their wives . True that there were  honest souls who could see the hardships and unfairness of it all  not denying but the majority view was biblical that a woman was property of the husband , That she should only defer to her husband and not speak counter to him.

I don't doubt that. 

[jkvlondon]

3 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

The problem is that the clamour for change isn't some organic, grassroots movement that's gained support and popularity on the ground among the common people before breaking into the mainstream consciousness. It originated as the brainchild of a particular demographic's upper-middle class academics - known for subversion throughout their entire history - which was eventually co-opted by corporations, organisations, and governments run by these same people or at least those sympathetic to their doctrine. What exactly is so radical and brave about a cause when the entire system of the Western machinery is behind it? At best, you're parroting and promoting philosophy that has done untold damage to the fabric of society on a deeper level than the superficial victories it's gained. Granted, it was a society that wasn't perfect by any means, but those leading the charge aren't interested in affecting positive change and building bridges; they want supremacy and vengeance for past grievances to be visited upon the vast majority who have never transgressed against womankind in even the vaguest way. Where do you see that ending? With Big Daddy State flexing his muscles in defense of his harem of agitators. Will it still be considered a victory fought for by women and lead by women when it'll be achieved through the overwhelming threat and power of the State looming ominously in the background?

it had to be a revolution not an organic process because of the overwhelming and intrenched mindset of the populace