hating violence, hating disorder—I want to say that from the moment we began our militant agitation to this day I have felt absolutely guiltless in this matter” (p. 156).
Or simply someone with the victim mentality. The tendency to interpersonal victimhood is a recognized personality type that draws empathy away from those who are seen as oppressors (all empathy is reserved for the self and others who suffer similar alleged victimhood) and makes possible acts of cruelty and violence towards those seen as the cause of one's own group's suffering.
Pankhurst also did a deal with Lord Balfour that if they supported WW1 recruitment middle class women would get the vote post war. Hence the white feather campaign in the UK and here in Australia. Rich entitled women shaming men to go to the western front.
These women had no shame my grandfather a doctor on the western front (think the film 1917 with my grandad's batman shooting the hopelessly wounded with granddad' revolver and with no morphia Then whilst on leave in London grandad was having a meal with a friend who was in civilian clothing when a bumptious suffragette stormed up handed his friend 'the feather' and called him a coward. My grandfather's friend then called the waiter to bring his crutches for you see he had lost a leg at the battle of Loos!
Some women had the vote in some cases where other women and men did not. There were property or educational franchises in most state upper houses in Australia until the 1950's and with local councils until the 1980's. Hence my grandmother could vote for the the Victorian legislative council and the local council when many men could not. I was pilloried for raising this (as a teacher) of a compulsory year 11 subject called Australian studies.
yes indeed. And in the UK the reforms of local government from the hopelessly overwhelmed old parish and town councils, to a system that dealt with the now huge industrial conurbations had alowed changes in the electorates along similar lines long before the that of the national electorate.
Jul 25, 2023·edited Jul 25, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
It's fascinating, and horrible, how often people will use allegations of oppression that have no support in history, to justify violence inflicted on innocent individuals. I saw some clips this weekend of reactions to the newly-released song, "Try that In A Small Town" that uses words and the images in the music video to criticize the violence that has swept the US since spring 2020. On the awful daytime TV show The View, the panel made claims the song was racist, and the videos of crimes shown in the music video were people engaged in uprising because their needs have been ignored.
Consider the trillions of dollars spent on federal anti-poverty programs, urban renewal, financial support to women with children, since the War on Poverty began in the late 1969s. The percent of the American population counted as living in poverty today is roughly the same as it was in the late 1960s - yet today, people receiving government aid own televisions, smart phones, microwave ovens in their kitchens (in addition to a range), and cars. I saw a video from the last Walmart to close in Chicago, after a mob had rampaged through, stealing merchandise and breaking fixtures. While most of the store was demolished, one section was untouched -- the fresh produce part of the grocery section.
Trans activists in the UK, Australia, NZ & the US have all the legal rights of any citizen, and get things other citizens can't get, such as insurance or government paying for elective surgery on healthy organs, or medications which physically healthy people are taking for cosmetic effects (e.g., beard growth or change in body fat distribution), choosing not just to participate in sports, but choosing which sex's team to play on, which restrooms, locker rooms and changing rooms they'll use. Even with government, institutional (e.g,. universities, employers, sports leagues) full support, these snowflakes claim to be oppressed, and swimmer Lia Thomas posted a photo on Twitter wearing a shirt reading: Antifa Super Soldier (alluding to violence which, in the US in 2020 alone, killed 37 (citizens https://national-conservative.com/extremist-files/2020-blm-antifa-deaths/).
I've come to believe that anyone who claims that violence is necessary to achieve the goals of their political cause are in actuality thirsty for violence, and only seek justification in retrospect.
Doesn't surprise me that these smash and grab hooligans are not getting their veggies. Democrats still tout the Great Society, but there's a lot of evidence that it was a disaster, and, as you point out, did not achieve it's goal of reducing poverty.
What is always intriguing to me is the usual absence from the story of Mr. Pankhurst. He was in fact a very prominent Barrister and known locally as "The Red Doctor". As he was very active in radical politics being one of the founders of the Labour Party.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pankhurst
Richard was 24 years older than his wife and during his lifetime sufficiently wealthy to have butlers and nanny so his young wife could join in with his political campaigning. I suppose it doesn't fit in with the feminist narrative that their heroine began her political campaigning as the young and impressionable wife of a much older man already campaigning for women's rights long before he married his young acolyte. The Pankhursts are local celebrities here in Manchester with a statue to Emmaline. But a bit of delving into local history reveals some intriguing information. For instance the campaigning for the War (WW1) by Emmaline and one of her daughters and for men to do their duty (white feather) though Sylvia the communist daughter opposed both. Strangely Emmaline also opposed the ending of the "property qualification" so that only women of substance(or whose father or husband's substance) voted. Given her comparatively humble beginings and her husbands politics she was also reputed to be a terrible snob locally.
Damn Janice, that was quite a lesson in the reality of the beginnings of feminist violence. It is quite telling that no one mentions it today. What I found myself thinking as I was reading was, were these women using men to do their violence or did they actually take it on themselves? I tried to envision women building bombs and couldn't. Would love to hear if they did this on their own or were dependent on men to carry out this stuff. Probably a mix I suppose.
Jul 26, 2023·edited Jul 26, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
I think a mix. Even within the Pankhurst clan there was a mix. The often forgotten Mr. Pankhurst (the "red doctor") Richard was mainly a radical operating through political means including the labour party he help found. His daughter Sylvia was far more radical and went revolutionary lsocialist and communist . Though like many was eventually disappointed by the USSR. Emmeline, Richard's widow, seeks to have become more violent after his death and she and Christabel were supporters of the violence and then the war (being leaders in the white feather movement) of course this was a period when there were all sorts of radical movements, Irish, anarchist, Marxist, socialist all small but interlinked and committed to violence. There is in my country (UK) a pervasive myth that our domestic politics were largely peaceful in the late Victorian and edwardian era. Which is of course rubbish. Attempts were made to assassinate Victoria and other royals and prominent politicians and notable people. From anarchist plots to bringing in some of the home fleet to threaten Liverpool dockers striking the UK was in as much a ferment as any other of the nervous European states. So plenty to copy from or link to. Probably the big difference was in the comparatively indulgent treatment of suffragettes. After all they just let Male hunger strikers die. Emmeline had become the candidate for a parliamentary seat tge year prior to her death, for the Conservative Party! Go figure that!
That's good to know: "After all they just let male hunger strikers die." I had just been assuming that they force fed all hunger strikers and only women were singled out for the shock and horror of their lives being preserved.
There was a movie about hunger strikes of a similar nature in 1981. It starred Hellen Mirren and was called 'Every Mother's Son'. It's been many years since I've seen it but I recall that it was quite good.
Thanks, Tom. I don't know the answer, but it was my impression that it was mainly the women themselves building these bombs. I don't suppose that letter bombs (sulphuric acid and phosphorous mixed together and dumped in mail boxes) took a great deal of ability, but I would expect some of the larger ones definitely would. Some WSPU members associated with anarchists and other far-left radicals, who may have helped them.
I would not be a bit surprised as the Klan was all about protecting white women from black men. The majority of lynchings of black men were the result of 'believe all women' when it came to accusations of sexual impropriety, no matter how slight.
Feminists heads explode when you point this out, but what happened to Emmett Till is exactly what they are pushing for except that they want it to be legal and extended to all men.
The story of Till has been grossly rewritten by essentially the same people who support feminism. The more you look into the case and Till, the more you will see why a lynch gang - almost half of whom were black - would kill Till.
Jul 26, 2023·edited Jul 26, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
As famous as this story is, you'd think more people would know that Till's father was executed by the military for 2 counts of rape and 1 of murder, and that he had only enlisted to avoid jail for domestic abuse. One has to wonder how far that apple fell from that tree.
I just looked into this story and the accussers could NOT identify the senior Till as the suspect because they were attacked in darkness. None of this justifies vigilante justice.
Senior Till's hanging was not a vigilante act, it was a sentence imposed during a military court martial.
During that court martial, two soldiers who participated in the home invasion, one of whom alleged that Till threatened to kill them if they didn't, testified that Till raped both women and then shot one of them while they begged him not to.
One of the soldiers was given immunity for his testimony. The other one, Fred McMurray, left physical evidence, in the form of an envelope addressed to him, at the scene.
So his accusers, his fellow soldiers, did positively identify him. Of the two victims, one of them couldn't identify him because he killed her. I don't know if the other one could identify him or not, but there was plenty of other evidence.
Why not? It's well known that sexual violence is generational. What are the odds that Emmitt, whose father chose going to war over doing prison time for domestic violence and then was hanged for 2 rapes and 1 murder, had an idyllic childhood involving a strict moral upbringing?
"Nothing that boy did could ever justify what happened to him" Carolyn Bryant Donham admitted to fabricating testimony against Till. So please do educate me as to what you are saying?
The more you look into the case and Cosby, the more you will see why a lynch gang - almost half of whom were black - would FRAME Cosby. Ever hear of the pound cake speech?
To kill a mocking bird is a book we "did" at school. It is interesting because the actual story is about an inocent man being accused of rape, being convicted solely on accusation and prejudice and being killed while "escaping". Much more recently I found on line a list of hundreds of cases of "extra judicial" killings and beatings. To be honest I was surprised to find 80% were cases of an accusation, from rape to looking at women in the "wrong" way. If one ignored the race it was a litany familiar in "rape culture". A classic of getting men to to terrible things in "protection" of defenseless women. It was as though feminism was copying this Strategy just extending it from black men to all men.
William Collins talk 'The Untold History of Universal Suffrage in the UK' is highly recommended for those wishing to look further into the myth of suffragette heroism. I think it's still available on YouTube.
I know from local history research of a campaign of terror which included the bombing of the main Post Office in Newport, South Wales, by a cohort of suffragettes imported from London. Some of these remained to proselytise among the working class coal mining towns, where - especially as their main activity seems to have consisted of handing out white feathers to teenage boys in chapel during the early years of World War One - they were given very short shrift, recognised for the elitist change agents they were.
Excellent piece. Radicals will always find justification for their actions and those actions thus glorified become the stamp of approval for further radicalism. Guiltless indeed. 🙄
<The actual aim was to foment a sex war, to express a deep hatred for the male sex, to attempt to provoke retaliatory violence from men (it is amazing it didn’t provoke more>,
They certainly succeed in creating the hatred of the male gender.
According to the current radical zeitgeist, since these violent acts committed by the women's movement occurred in the late 1800s and the early 1900s, would not current feminism be guilty of all their past wrongs, and reparations, be made? Or, would modern feminism get yet another pass on culpability that all other groups in history do not?
I like that idea. The suffragettes did damage to the tune of millions of British pounds. Let those who celebrate Emmeline Pankhurst as a great heroine of the cause pay it back.
There is a probability that portions of these reparations tasked to individual supporters of terrorist suffragettes end up being another public expense burden.
Fits with my personal view that feminist "leadership" was (and still is) a minority group of would-be bullies - children who never matured beyond the juvenile tactic of throwing tantrums to get their way.
Possibly the Marxist/Communist elements provide the bombs, tactics etc? - they seemed to be closely aligned.
Not that I know much else about her, but Erica Chenoweth apparently showed that historically, non-violent revolts have been roughly twice as successful as violent ones.
I think two of the most evilly genius moves of mid-20th century feminists were to: 1. call themselves "the women's movement" (nobody asked *all* women if they wanted feminists speaking in the name of women), and 2. wording their demands as "women need x, y & z" when in fact feminists *wanted* x, y & z.
I can remember being vaguely disconcerted when first hearing that phrase, but then thinking no more about. An easy thing to disregard if you’re male - just accepting that women's equality (as I then naively understood the movement to be about) would naturally apply to all women. I can see how being female would automatically cause you to question this generalisation however. False but superficially plausible generalisations are a classic technique for misleading people. Thanks for pointing that out.
It has never been true, in the US, that no women could vote and all men could. There have always been certain jurisdictions in which women could vote. In some states, particulary the newer ones, women have always had the right to vote, hold office, etc. The 19th Amendment just federalized female suffrage.
Today, more men are not allowed to vote than women. Men who don't register for the draft can't vote. Women, on the other hand, aren't required to register for the draft. Felons can't vote, either, and a hugely disproportionate number of felons are men.
It is also largely overlooked that the biggest impediment to female suffrage was that most women didn't want it. As soon as most men perceived that women did want it, they voted to give it to them. I've often wondered, somewhat paradoxically, if the 19th Amendment would have passed if women could have voted against it.
As with many things the History of the UK and the USA are quite different. The national vote was pretty restricted by age, sex and property. And this continued to the reform at the end of WW1. When sex and property ceased to be qualifications. Age remained of course. In fact changes in "local government" happened much earlier partly because the ballooning population meant many reforms were needed to what was still a medieval system.
I had always thought that women weren't prohibited from voting in the UK until coverture in the 1830s. Even under coverture, I believe, unmarried women could still own property and do most things men could--I'm not sure about voting.
Karen Straughan had a lot to say about coverture but I can never find any of it because she's made so much content and she's fond of cute titles that really don't tell you much about what's in the blog or video.
Jul 25, 2023·edited Jul 26, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
Strangely the explicit exclusion of women voting was a result of the 1831 reform act which was the first to say "Male persons" over 21 and with sufficient property. Prior to that some wealthy women had voted. The reform act was about the national elections and the more complex nature of the local council electorate is shown by such as this "There is a poll book from 1843 that clearly shows thirty women's names among those who voted. These women were playing an active role in the election. On the roll, the wealthiest female elector was Grace Brown, a butcher. Due to the high rates that she paid, Grace Brown was entitled to four votes" as you can see women did vote and like men greater wealth (taxable) meant you got more votes! The 1869 more explicitly gave the franchise to single women, widows or indeed divorcees with property. This was then extended to married women whose husbands taxable wealth was counted. As you can see in the UK the key was paying tax on property. Thus prior to the 1918 act 40% of "Male persons" over 21 could not vote because they were not paying a property tax. Of course this means a much higher % of the soldiers in WW1 couldn't have voted because the bulk of volunteers and later conscripted "men" were not 21. One great uncle was in the high seas fleet fighting the U boat menace at 16 and another was fighting in the middle east at 17.
Coverture is interesting because this seems to have been much more prominent in the US . In the UK ( and remembering Scotland and Ireland had separate legal systems) certainly women from aristocratic and gentry appear not to have their inheritance just lumped in with their husband. Indeed where the wife's family was more prestigious the husband took the name of his wife's in order to ensure their progeny would inherit the more illustrious name and hopefully some property. This happened in two of the local "county" families in the 19th century and I'm sure it was equally as common in the rest of the country. Of course no one gave any thought about the vast majority of tte population who had nothing and the relatively sudden huge expansion of the bourgeoisie, whose wealth was not in land probably pushed the legal presumptions hard.
As I recall, in the podcast of Karen's I can no longer find, she said that, under coverture, women could have money of their own but all of a man's wealth was community property. Men were responsible for the support of the family but women were not. She also explained that married women couldn't get credit or sign contracts simply because their husbands, alone, would assume all responsibility for their debts and contractual obligations and they would have none.
In this country (England) the thing about male relatives being guarantors was introduced following campaigns ( Dickens being very prominent) to end the "horror" of being imprisoned for debt. It ended that possibility by requiring a male relative to be the responsible person. Prior to this new "enlightened" law even quite aristorcatic ladies had had found themselves incarcerated just like debtor men. This of course was in a society where going to prison for non payment of debts was a regular thing. In a sense the feminists are right, during the Victorian era the push to protect ladies from any nastiness did indeed remove their responsibilities. These statutes were quite short lived as here they mainly disapeared in the 1960s.
I don't think a prison sentence for unpaid debt in necessarily a bad thing. People often rack up debt with no intention of paying, which is tantamount to theft.
Currently, in the US, I often see and hear arguments regarding credit scores being cruel and unusual punishments that are 'targetted' at oppressing women and minorities. The idea, here too, is that everyone is entitled to freely borrow money (because everyone deserves whatever they feel they need or want) and it has to be paid for by those who can afford to pay. In this instance, it's a broadly applied progressive tax system but, as we all know, white males would overwhelmingly bear the brunt of it.
Wow! Not the History I learned on Women's Suffrage in Gr 11. Thank You again Janice.
Backlash to violence of this type also provides another popular movement icon. The Martyr. Just like the Tranny attempt at having one of their members get their wagon fixed so they too can have their George Floyd moment, Feminism would like to have theirs as well.
Sooner than later one hopes, men will have to stand up for themselves, verbally at first… .
I just finished reading the lengthy Wikipedia article about Emmeline Pankhurst (née Goulden; 15 July 1858 – 14 June 1928). Thank you, Janice for providing what the article failed to mention.
hating violence, hating disorder—I want to say that from the moment we began our militant agitation to this day I have felt absolutely guiltless in this matter” (p. 156).
Nice of her to admit that she was a psychopath.
Indeed! I was thinking the same thing! lol
Me too!
This article nicely sums up the research paper I'm thinking of:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/unraveling-the-mindset-of-victimhood/
Or simply someone with the victim mentality. The tendency to interpersonal victimhood is a recognized personality type that draws empathy away from those who are seen as oppressors (all empathy is reserved for the self and others who suffer similar alleged victimhood) and makes possible acts of cruelty and violence towards those seen as the cause of one's own group's suffering.
Pankhurst also did a deal with Lord Balfour that if they supported WW1 recruitment middle class women would get the vote post war. Hence the white feather campaign in the UK and here in Australia. Rich entitled women shaming men to go to the western front.
These women had no shame my grandfather a doctor on the western front (think the film 1917 with my grandad's batman shooting the hopelessly wounded with granddad' revolver and with no morphia Then whilst on leave in London grandad was having a meal with a friend who was in civilian clothing when a bumptious suffragette stormed up handed his friend 'the feather' and called him a coward. My grandfather's friend then called the waiter to bring his crutches for you see he had lost a leg at the battle of Loos!
Some women had the vote in some cases where other women and men did not. There were property or educational franchises in most state upper houses in Australia until the 1950's and with local councils until the 1980's. Hence my grandmother could vote for the the Victorian legislative council and the local council when many men could not. I was pilloried for raising this (as a teacher) of a compulsory year 11 subject called Australian studies.
yes indeed. And in the UK the reforms of local government from the hopelessly overwhelmed old parish and town councils, to a system that dealt with the now huge industrial conurbations had alowed changes in the electorates along similar lines long before the that of the national electorate.
Thanks for that. The women should have been sent to the trenches as they wanted equality.
It's fascinating, and horrible, how often people will use allegations of oppression that have no support in history, to justify violence inflicted on innocent individuals. I saw some clips this weekend of reactions to the newly-released song, "Try that In A Small Town" that uses words and the images in the music video to criticize the violence that has swept the US since spring 2020. On the awful daytime TV show The View, the panel made claims the song was racist, and the videos of crimes shown in the music video were people engaged in uprising because their needs have been ignored.
Consider the trillions of dollars spent on federal anti-poverty programs, urban renewal, financial support to women with children, since the War on Poverty began in the late 1969s. The percent of the American population counted as living in poverty today is roughly the same as it was in the late 1960s - yet today, people receiving government aid own televisions, smart phones, microwave ovens in their kitchens (in addition to a range), and cars. I saw a video from the last Walmart to close in Chicago, after a mob had rampaged through, stealing merchandise and breaking fixtures. While most of the store was demolished, one section was untouched -- the fresh produce part of the grocery section.
Trans activists in the UK, Australia, NZ & the US have all the legal rights of any citizen, and get things other citizens can't get, such as insurance or government paying for elective surgery on healthy organs, or medications which physically healthy people are taking for cosmetic effects (e.g., beard growth or change in body fat distribution), choosing not just to participate in sports, but choosing which sex's team to play on, which restrooms, locker rooms and changing rooms they'll use. Even with government, institutional (e.g,. universities, employers, sports leagues) full support, these snowflakes claim to be oppressed, and swimmer Lia Thomas posted a photo on Twitter wearing a shirt reading: Antifa Super Soldier (alluding to violence which, in the US in 2020 alone, killed 37 (citizens https://national-conservative.com/extremist-files/2020-blm-antifa-deaths/).
I've come to believe that anyone who claims that violence is necessary to achieve the goals of their political cause are in actuality thirsty for violence, and only seek justification in retrospect.
Doesn't surprise me that these smash and grab hooligans are not getting their veggies. Democrats still tout the Great Society, but there's a lot of evidence that it was a disaster, and, as you point out, did not achieve it's goal of reducing poverty.
What is always intriguing to me is the usual absence from the story of Mr. Pankhurst. He was in fact a very prominent Barrister and known locally as "The Red Doctor". As he was very active in radical politics being one of the founders of the Labour Party.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pankhurst
Richard was 24 years older than his wife and during his lifetime sufficiently wealthy to have butlers and nanny so his young wife could join in with his political campaigning. I suppose it doesn't fit in with the feminist narrative that their heroine began her political campaigning as the young and impressionable wife of a much older man already campaigning for women's rights long before he married his young acolyte. The Pankhursts are local celebrities here in Manchester with a statue to Emmaline. But a bit of delving into local history reveals some intriguing information. For instance the campaigning for the War (WW1) by Emmaline and one of her daughters and for men to do their duty (white feather) though Sylvia the communist daughter opposed both. Strangely Emmaline also opposed the ending of the "property qualification" so that only women of substance(or whose father or husband's substance) voted. Given her comparatively humble beginings and her husbands politics she was also reputed to be a terrible snob locally.
Which feeds into a major point I always make: fEMINISTS come from privilage
Damn Janice, that was quite a lesson in the reality of the beginnings of feminist violence. It is quite telling that no one mentions it today. What I found myself thinking as I was reading was, were these women using men to do their violence or did they actually take it on themselves? I tried to envision women building bombs and couldn't. Would love to hear if they did this on their own or were dependent on men to carry out this stuff. Probably a mix I suppose.
I think a mix. Even within the Pankhurst clan there was a mix. The often forgotten Mr. Pankhurst (the "red doctor") Richard was mainly a radical operating through political means including the labour party he help found. His daughter Sylvia was far more radical and went revolutionary lsocialist and communist . Though like many was eventually disappointed by the USSR. Emmeline, Richard's widow, seeks to have become more violent after his death and she and Christabel were supporters of the violence and then the war (being leaders in the white feather movement) of course this was a period when there were all sorts of radical movements, Irish, anarchist, Marxist, socialist all small but interlinked and committed to violence. There is in my country (UK) a pervasive myth that our domestic politics were largely peaceful in the late Victorian and edwardian era. Which is of course rubbish. Attempts were made to assassinate Victoria and other royals and prominent politicians and notable people. From anarchist plots to bringing in some of the home fleet to threaten Liverpool dockers striking the UK was in as much a ferment as any other of the nervous European states. So plenty to copy from or link to. Probably the big difference was in the comparatively indulgent treatment of suffragettes. After all they just let Male hunger strikers die. Emmeline had become the candidate for a parliamentary seat tge year prior to her death, for the Conservative Party! Go figure that!
Thanks Nigel. Fascinating.
That's good to know: "After all they just let male hunger strikers die." I had just been assuming that they force fed all hunger strikers and only women were singled out for the shock and horror of their lives being preserved.
You might be interested in the case of Terence McSwiney.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_MacSwiney?wprov=sfti1
I am. Thanks.
There was a movie about hunger strikes of a similar nature in 1981. It starred Hellen Mirren and was called 'Every Mother's Son'. It's been many years since I've seen it but I recall that it was quite good.
Thanks, Tom. I don't know the answer, but it was my impression that it was mainly the women themselves building these bombs. I don't suppose that letter bombs (sulphuric acid and phosphorous mixed together and dumped in mail boxes) took a great deal of ability, but I would expect some of the larger ones definitely would. Some WSPU members associated with anarchists and other far-left radicals, who may have helped them.
Thanks Janice. Appreciate hearing your take on this.
It would not be a good look for the feminists to show us their heroes were something like the terrorist gangs of the 60s and 70s I would say.
If you liked this you should read Women of the Klan.
The WKKK was worse than the men's.
I would not be a bit surprised as the Klan was all about protecting white women from black men. The majority of lynchings of black men were the result of 'believe all women' when it came to accusations of sexual impropriety, no matter how slight.
Feminists heads explode when you point this out, but what happened to Emmett Till is exactly what they are pushing for except that they want it to be legal and extended to all men.
The story of Till has been grossly rewritten by essentially the same people who support feminism. The more you look into the case and Till, the more you will see why a lynch gang - almost half of whom were black - would kill Till.
As famous as this story is, you'd think more people would know that Till's father was executed by the military for 2 counts of rape and 1 of murder, and that he had only enlisted to avoid jail for domestic abuse. One has to wonder how far that apple fell from that tree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Till#:~:text=Louis%20Till%20was%20the%20father,son%27s%20murderers%20ten%20years%20later.
I just looked into this story and the accussers could NOT identify the senior Till as the suspect because they were attacked in darkness. None of this justifies vigilante justice.
You'll have to show this to those of us who don't believe you.
I do believe you read someone else claiming this, but I don't believe you saw the Italian documents.
Senior Till's hanging was not a vigilante act, it was a sentence imposed during a military court martial.
During that court martial, two soldiers who participated in the home invasion, one of whom alleged that Till threatened to kill them if they didn't, testified that Till raped both women and then shot one of them while they begged him not to.
One of the soldiers was given immunity for his testimony. The other one, Fred McMurray, left physical evidence, in the form of an envelope addressed to him, at the scene.
So his accusers, his fellow soldiers, did positively identify him. Of the two victims, one of them couldn't identify him because he killed her. I don't know if the other one could identify him or not, but there was plenty of other evidence.
What the Father did is not a reflection or indictment of the son
Why not? It's well known that sexual violence is generational. What are the odds that Emmitt, whose father chose going to war over doing prison time for domestic violence and then was hanged for 2 rapes and 1 murder, had an idyllic childhood involving a strict moral upbringing?
"Nothing that boy did could ever justify what happened to him" Carolyn Bryant Donham admitted to fabricating testimony against Till. So please do educate me as to what you are saying?
No. She didn't. A journalist claimed she did.
The more you look into the case and Cosby, the more you will see why a lynch gang - almost half of whom were black - would FRAME Cosby. Ever hear of the pound cake speech?
To kill a mocking bird is a book we "did" at school. It is interesting because the actual story is about an inocent man being accused of rape, being convicted solely on accusation and prejudice and being killed while "escaping". Much more recently I found on line a list of hundreds of cases of "extra judicial" killings and beatings. To be honest I was surprised to find 80% were cases of an accusation, from rape to looking at women in the "wrong" way. If one ignored the race it was a litany familiar in "rape culture". A classic of getting men to to terrible things in "protection" of defenseless women. It was as though feminism was copying this Strategy just extending it from black men to all men.
Thanks for the reference. A little pricey, $17 for Kindle, though that's not a surprise since it was probably never a best seller.
Alas, such double standards continue to this day. “He who controls the past, controls the present…”
- George Orwell
William Collins talk 'The Untold History of Universal Suffrage in the UK' is highly recommended for those wishing to look further into the myth of suffragette heroism. I think it's still available on YouTube.
I know from local history research of a campaign of terror which included the bombing of the main Post Office in Newport, South Wales, by a cohort of suffragettes imported from London. Some of these remained to proselytise among the working class coal mining towns, where - especially as their main activity seems to have consisted of handing out white feathers to teenage boys in chapel during the early years of World War One - they were given very short shrift, recognised for the elitist change agents they were.
Excellent piece. Radicals will always find justification for their actions and those actions thus glorified become the stamp of approval for further radicalism. Guiltless indeed. 🙄
<The actual aim was to foment a sex war, to express a deep hatred for the male sex, to attempt to provoke retaliatory violence from men (it is amazing it didn’t provoke more>,
They certainly succeed in creating the hatred of the male gender.
According to the current radical zeitgeist, since these violent acts committed by the women's movement occurred in the late 1800s and the early 1900s, would not current feminism be guilty of all their past wrongs, and reparations, be made? Or, would modern feminism get yet another pass on culpability that all other groups in history do not?
I like that idea. The suffragettes did damage to the tune of millions of British pounds. Let those who celebrate Emmeline Pankhurst as a great heroine of the cause pay it back.
There is a probability that portions of these reparations tasked to individual supporters of terrorist suffragettes end up being another public expense burden.
Yes, the point must be driven home. Concerning the types we are dealing with - it will somehow miss the mark.
Yes, it always does. I like the idea, but the practice wouldn't work.
Fits with my personal view that feminist "leadership" was (and still is) a minority group of would-be bullies - children who never matured beyond the juvenile tactic of throwing tantrums to get their way.
Possibly the Marxist/Communist elements provide the bombs, tactics etc? - they seemed to be closely aligned.
Not that I know much else about her, but Erica Chenoweth apparently showed that historically, non-violent revolts have been roughly twice as successful as violent ones.
I think two of the most evilly genius moves of mid-20th century feminists were to: 1. call themselves "the women's movement" (nobody asked *all* women if they wanted feminists speaking in the name of women), and 2. wording their demands as "women need x, y & z" when in fact feminists *wanted* x, y & z.
I can remember being vaguely disconcerted when first hearing that phrase, but then thinking no more about. An easy thing to disregard if you’re male - just accepting that women's equality (as I then naively understood the movement to be about) would naturally apply to all women. I can see how being female would automatically cause you to question this generalisation however. False but superficially plausible generalisations are a classic technique for misleading people. Thanks for pointing that out.
What one needs, what one wants and what one deserves are almost always completely different.
How shocking that a women's movement is long on passion and short on logic.
The feminist movement. Not all women support this. I know I don't, and never have.
Point taken. Not all women are crazy feminists, thank God.
True, some are just crazy.
Haha, too true.
Janice, thanks for this excellent piece. Very well-researched, as always.
Mike Buchanan
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
http://j4mb.org.uk
It has never been true, in the US, that no women could vote and all men could. There have always been certain jurisdictions in which women could vote. In some states, particulary the newer ones, women have always had the right to vote, hold office, etc. The 19th Amendment just federalized female suffrage.
Today, more men are not allowed to vote than women. Men who don't register for the draft can't vote. Women, on the other hand, aren't required to register for the draft. Felons can't vote, either, and a hugely disproportionate number of felons are men.
It is also largely overlooked that the biggest impediment to female suffrage was that most women didn't want it. As soon as most men perceived that women did want it, they voted to give it to them. I've often wondered, somewhat paradoxically, if the 19th Amendment would have passed if women could have voted against it.
As with many things the History of the UK and the USA are quite different. The national vote was pretty restricted by age, sex and property. And this continued to the reform at the end of WW1. When sex and property ceased to be qualifications. Age remained of course. In fact changes in "local government" happened much earlier partly because the ballooning population meant many reforms were needed to what was still a medieval system.
I had always thought that women weren't prohibited from voting in the UK until coverture in the 1830s. Even under coverture, I believe, unmarried women could still own property and do most things men could--I'm not sure about voting.
Karen Straughan had a lot to say about coverture but I can never find any of it because she's made so much content and she's fond of cute titles that really don't tell you much about what's in the blog or video.
Strangely the explicit exclusion of women voting was a result of the 1831 reform act which was the first to say "Male persons" over 21 and with sufficient property. Prior to that some wealthy women had voted. The reform act was about the national elections and the more complex nature of the local council electorate is shown by such as this "There is a poll book from 1843 that clearly shows thirty women's names among those who voted. These women were playing an active role in the election. On the roll, the wealthiest female elector was Grace Brown, a butcher. Due to the high rates that she paid, Grace Brown was entitled to four votes" as you can see women did vote and like men greater wealth (taxable) meant you got more votes! The 1869 more explicitly gave the franchise to single women, widows or indeed divorcees with property. This was then extended to married women whose husbands taxable wealth was counted. As you can see in the UK the key was paying tax on property. Thus prior to the 1918 act 40% of "Male persons" over 21 could not vote because they were not paying a property tax. Of course this means a much higher % of the soldiers in WW1 couldn't have voted because the bulk of volunteers and later conscripted "men" were not 21. One great uncle was in the high seas fleet fighting the U boat menace at 16 and another was fighting in the middle east at 17.
Coverture is interesting because this seems to have been much more prominent in the US . In the UK ( and remembering Scotland and Ireland had separate legal systems) certainly women from aristocratic and gentry appear not to have their inheritance just lumped in with their husband. Indeed where the wife's family was more prestigious the husband took the name of his wife's in order to ensure their progeny would inherit the more illustrious name and hopefully some property. This happened in two of the local "county" families in the 19th century and I'm sure it was equally as common in the rest of the country. Of course no one gave any thought about the vast majority of tte population who had nothing and the relatively sudden huge expansion of the bourgeoisie, whose wealth was not in land probably pushed the legal presumptions hard.
Good stuff to know.
As I recall, in the podcast of Karen's I can no longer find, she said that, under coverture, women could have money of their own but all of a man's wealth was community property. Men were responsible for the support of the family but women were not. She also explained that married women couldn't get credit or sign contracts simply because their husbands, alone, would assume all responsibility for their debts and contractual obligations and they would have none.
In this country (England) the thing about male relatives being guarantors was introduced following campaigns ( Dickens being very prominent) to end the "horror" of being imprisoned for debt. It ended that possibility by requiring a male relative to be the responsible person. Prior to this new "enlightened" law even quite aristorcatic ladies had had found themselves incarcerated just like debtor men. This of course was in a society where going to prison for non payment of debts was a regular thing. In a sense the feminists are right, during the Victorian era the push to protect ladies from any nastiness did indeed remove their responsibilities. These statutes were quite short lived as here they mainly disapeared in the 1960s.
I don't think a prison sentence for unpaid debt in necessarily a bad thing. People often rack up debt with no intention of paying, which is tantamount to theft.
Currently, in the US, I often see and hear arguments regarding credit scores being cruel and unusual punishments that are 'targetted' at oppressing women and minorities. The idea, here too, is that everyone is entitled to freely borrow money (because everyone deserves whatever they feel they need or want) and it has to be paid for by those who can afford to pay. In this instance, it's a broadly applied progressive tax system but, as we all know, white males would overwhelmingly bear the brunt of it.
Wow! Not the History I learned on Women's Suffrage in Gr 11. Thank You again Janice.
Backlash to violence of this type also provides another popular movement icon. The Martyr. Just like the Tranny attempt at having one of their members get their wagon fixed so they too can have their George Floyd moment, Feminism would like to have theirs as well.
Sooner than later one hopes, men will have to stand up for themselves, verbally at first… .
I just finished reading the lengthy Wikipedia article about Emmeline Pankhurst (née Goulden; 15 July 1858 – 14 June 1928). Thank you, Janice for providing what the article failed to mention.