You girls had it good once, you were your own boss, you looked after your house your kids, you could go for a coffee break with friends or do some shopping anytime you felt like it well almost.

You had the good life, once just being carefree women doing women’s things spending men’s money, men didn’t really mind, they never do.

But then a hand full of these old rich men (the oligarchy),  the ones feminist seem to hate the most had a light bulb idea.

Must of gone something like this,

Hey you guys do you realise that half the world’s population stays at home and doesn’t contribute to our nest egg in some form or another.

So they invented feminism and with money and the help of organisation like the UN which they run inserted some rebel rousers into this community of women like a capuchin monkey tethered to a string dancing to the music box and presto feminism was born, burning bras was in fashion and women didn’t want women’s things anymore, they wanted to be men.

So today most women go around trying to be like men instead of being like women you’re always going to be a second class citizen that way, just the same if men went around trying to be women.

Well girls you’ve been had big time, you’ve been saddled like men have from the beginning of time to do the heavy lifting.

So roll up those sleeves welcome to the club and heave ho your life away, those wonderful yester years are well and truly behind all of you whether young or old.

As for myself I’ve been working since I was 13 years old, if I win tatts there’s no way I will keep the 9 to 5, I’ll kick it into the stands hopefully never to be seen again.

I certainly want to be free of that ball and chain, I will find other things to do like golf, overseas trips and such but for now I can only dream.

https://i.ibb.co/kSDCx6V/WCDGJPG.jpg

if only it was that easy...

you see ajax  when we had a ww11... and probably ww1 as well... women took the place of men while they were away fighting  the women took over their jobs and did very well indeed... they even made bombs for our guys to drop....no ones bragging here ajax  its just that the home fires had to be stoked then men were gone.. who else was there???????

then when the war was over and the men returned  the women had to step aside  the men wanted their jobs back    and rightly so....  however seeds were sown...women could and did do job that  men were always thought could only do....not only that they also kept the homes going and had children and reared them....

they did an amazing job and then one day they were sent back to the kitchen sink with NO INCOME...

a few women put two and two together and thought this aint right really......

and if you care to think about it   they were right....

women are equal always have been   we deserved more than we were getting back then....

it shouldnt be them against us.....it really shouldnt !   where would we be without each other????.....

if we stopped all this nonsense and crapping on each other the world would be a much better place...

good answer

what do you think agnes... you would be more of the generation of feminism than me..I think they have well and truly lost their way    but doesnt everything?

:-X :-X

I think they could do with me in politics to be honest...

well that would be the first hurdle I am too HONEST...lolol

cods wrote on Nov 9^th, 2019 at 4:41pm:

if only it was that easy... you see ajax  when we had a ww11... and probably ww1 as well... women took the place of men while they were away fighting  the women took over their jobs and did very well indeed... they even made bombs for our guys to drop....no ones bragging here ajax  its just that the home fires had to be stoked then men were gone.. who else was there??????? then when the war was over and the men returned  the women had to step aside  the men wanted their jobs back    and rightly so....  however seeds were sown...women could and did do job that  men were always thought could only do....not only that they also kept the homes going and had children and reared them.... they did an amazing job and then one day they were sent back to the kitchen sink with NO INCOME... a few women put two and two together and thought this aint right really...... and if you care to think about it   they were right.... women are equal always have been   we deserved more than we were getting back then.... it shouldnt be them against us.....it really shouldnt !   where would we be without each other????..... if we stopped all this nonsense and crapping on each other the world would be a much better place...

While that is true cods, it was out of necessity and they did do a wonderful job. Bringing both sexes into the workforce in peacetime has only resulted in pretty much halving the pay. You would think two incomes would make a family wealthier but in the long run, it has not. What was once affordable on a sole breadwinners pay now takes the pay of both. That's just economics, if we double a family's income, prices will rise to eat that increase. Now instead of the family looking after their own kids almost one income goes in childcare.

cods wrote on Nov 9^th, 2019 at 4:41pm:

if only it was that easy... you see ajax  when we had a ww11... and probably ww1 as well... women took the place of men while they were away fighting  the women took over their jobs and did very well indeed... they even made bombs for our guys to drop....no ones bragging here ajax  its just that the home fires had to be stoked then men were gone.. who else was there??????? then when the war was over and the men returned  the women had to step aside  the men wanted their jobs back    and rightly so....  however seeds were sown...women could and did do job that  men were always thought could only do....not only that they also kept the homes going and had children and reared them.... they did an amazing job and then one day they were sent back to the kitchen sink with NO INCOME... a few women put two and two together and thought this aint right really...... and if you care to think about it   they were right.... women are equal always have been   we deserved more than we were getting back then.... it shouldnt be them against us.....it really shouldnt !   where would we be without each other????..... if we stopped all this nonsense and crapping on each other the world would be a much better place...

It would, so why isn't it?

The glass ceiling & all the other "non equal" palava ... is at the simplest ... utter rot.

Setanta wrote on Nov 9^th, 2019 at 5:32pm:

cods wrote on Nov 9th, 2019 at 4:41pm: if only it was that easy... you see ajax  when we had a ww11... and probably ww1 as well... women took the place of men while they were away fighting  the women took over their jobs and did very well indeed... they even made bombs for our guys to drop....no ones bragging here ajax  its just that the home fires had to be stoked then men were gone.. who else was there??????? then when the war was over and the men returned  the women had to step aside  the men wanted their jobs back    and rightly so....  however seeds were sown...women could and did do job that  men were always thought could only do....not only that they also kept the homes going and had children and reared them.... they did an amazing job and then one day they were sent back to the kitchen sink with NO INCOME... a few women put two and two together and thought this aint right really...... and if you care to think about it   they were right.... women are equal always have been   we deserved more than we were getting back then.... it shouldnt be them against us.....it really shouldnt !   where would we be without each other????..... if we stopped all this nonsense and crapping on each other the world would be a much better place... While that is true cods, it was out of necessity and they did do a wonderful job. Bringing both sexes into the workforce in peacetime has only resulted in pretty much halving the pay. You would think two incomes would make a family wealthier but in the long run, it has not. What was once affordable on a sole breadwinners pay now takes the pay of both. That's just economics, if we double a family's income, prices will rise to eat that increase. Now instead of the family looking after their own kids almost one income goes in childcare.

Perzactly

Setanta wrote on Nov 9^th, 2019 at 5:32pm:

cods wrote on Nov 9th, 2019 at 4:41pm: if only it was that easy... you see ajax  when we had a ww11... and probably ww1 as well... women took the place of men while they were away fighting  the women took over their jobs and did very well indeed... they even made bombs for our guys to drop....no ones bragging here ajax  its just that the home fires had to be stoked then men were gone.. who else was there??????? then when the war was over and the men returned  the women had to step aside  the men wanted their jobs back    and rightly so....  however seeds were sown...women could and did do job that  men were always thought could only do....not only that they also kept the homes going and had children and reared them.... they did an amazing job and then one day they were sent back to the kitchen sink with NO INCOME... a few women put two and two together and thought this aint right really...... and if you care to think about it   they were right.... women are equal always have been   we deserved more than we were getting back then.... it shouldnt be them against us.....it really shouldnt !   where would we be without each other????..... if we stopped all this nonsense and crapping on each other the world would be a much better place... While that is true cods, it was out of necessity and they did do a wonderful job. Bringing both sexes into the workforce in peacetime has only resulted in pretty much halving the pay. You would think two incomes would make a family wealthier but in the long run, it has not. What was once affordable on a sole breadwinners pay now takes the pay of both. That's just economics, if we double a family's income, prices will rise to eat that increase. Now instead of the family looking after their own kids almost one income goes in childcare.

::) ::)

i said that set....the thing is the women who did that work while the men were fighting never really got recognition they did the farm work as well as ammunition as well as decoding....seriously   they were just set aside and if you like forgotten...women who suddenly found independence thanks to full time work with wages......suddenly it stopped now in England rationing went on for years after the war and who dealt with all that?????  thats right the women  I remember my mu queuing up at every shop.... no such thing as one shop sells all in those days....freezing weather it didnt change    scrapping and making do...those women were HEROS...seriously they were...I know how much my mum went without  to feed us and cloth us....my dad he wouldnt know the half of it  he wasnt interested....

people today are greedy   they want it all and they want it now...

not happy unless they each have a car... do you have any idea how much it costs to run one car in a year???

mum has to wear the best clothes  nothing from Kmart ....I went to my grandsons school the other night private ... and looking at the mums and dads in the audience...was quite a shock....they mostly looked rough and ready  a few had smaller kids in tow...you would expect here ACT they would be public servants   but these didnt look a bit like what we see here.....

you would be surprised mate you really would... they are not scratching to get by......

People think they are no better off because the only way they have to compare their wealth is by comparing themselves to their neighbours. They would never think to compare how well off they are to people in foreign countries, unless those countries have the same culture anyway, and they also don't think to compare themselves to how well off their ancestors were. We have bigger and better houses, cars, entertainment, medicine, food, feminine hygiene products, just about anything you can think of. And we have the choice of weather to acquire those better things.

cods wrote on Nov 9^th, 2019 at 6:29pm:

do you have any idea how much it costs to run one car in a year???

I still have the car downstairs but it hasn't been registered for about four years. We walk. With the money saved on rego/insurance etc we can pay people to drive us if we need to get driven and still save a bucket load and stay fit.

My parents were WW2 kids and I've learned a lot from them about what one "needs".

Setanta wrote on Nov 9^th, 2019 at 6:44pm:

cods wrote on Nov 9th, 2019 at 6:29pm: do you have any idea how much it costs to run one car in a year??? I still have the car downstairs but it hasn't been registered for about four years. We walk. With the money saved on rego/insurance etc we can pay people to drive us if we need to get driven and still save a bucket load and stay fit. My parents were WW2 kids and I've learned a lot from them about what one "needs".

Country living.  A great alternative to Sydney where you can't move from/without a car unless you live and work within country distances - millions of course don't.

The masses yearning for tree change explained.



.

Frank wrote on Nov 9^th, 2019 at 8:52pm:

Setanta wrote on Nov 9th, 2019 at 6:44pm: cods wrote on Nov 9th, 2019 at 6:29pm: do you have any idea how much it costs to run one car in a year??? I still have the car downstairs but it hasn't been registered for about four years. We walk. With the money saved on rego/insurance etc we can pay people to drive us if we need to get driven and still save a bucket load and stay fit. My parents were WW2 kids and I've learned a lot from them about what one "needs". Country living.  A great alternative to Sydney where you can't move from/without a car unless you live and work within country distances - millions of course don't. The masses yearning for tree change explained. .

There are over twice as many people living in Perth than lived in the whole state of WA when I left Perth. You'll never get away from them.

Setanta wrote on Nov 9^th, 2019 at 6:44pm:

cods wrote on Nov 9th, 2019 at 6:29pm: do you have any idea how much it costs to run one car in a year??? I still have the car downstairs but it hasn't been registered for about four years. We walk. With the money saved on rego/insurance etc we can pay people to drive us if we need to get driven and still save a bucket load and stay fit. My parents were WW2 kids and I've learned a lot from them about what one "needs".

I love it when I go on hols without the car.

Gordon wrote on Nov 9^th, 2019 at 9:35pm:

Setanta wrote on Nov 9th, 2019 at 6:44pm: cods wrote on Nov 9th, 2019 at 6:29pm: do you have any idea how much it costs to run one car in a year??? I still have the car downstairs but it hasn't been registered for about four years. We walk. With the money saved on rego/insurance etc we can pay people to drive us if we need to get driven and still save a bucket load and stay fit. My parents were WW2 kids and I've learned a lot from them about what one "needs". I love it when I go on hols without the car.

If I still had kids at home, the car would be going. It's just not economically viable for two people when we can walk everywhere we need to go.

Well let's just say that 'Women' seem to better Men at
SPORT in Australia!
Australian Women are 'dominating' Australian Men in many ways.

...but in Australia, North America, South America & the Middle-East - women do do better at Sport than men.


[funny how the world works eh ;)]

Jasin wrote on Nov 9^th, 2019 at 9:38pm:

Well let's just say that 'Women' seem to better Men at SPORT in Australia! Australian Women are 'dominating' Australian Men in many ways. ...but in Australia, North America, South America & the Middle-East - women do do better at Sport than men. [funny how the world works eh ;)]

Yeah, whatever. I don't follow sport so can't contradict you. What was your point anyway?

Setanta wrote on Nov 9^th, 2019 at 9:37pm:

Gordon wrote on Nov 9th, 2019 at 9:35pm: Setanta wrote on Nov 9th, 2019 at 6:44pm: cods wrote on Nov 9th, 2019 at 6:29pm: do you have any idea how much it costs to run one car in a year??? I still have the car downstairs but it hasn't been registered for about four years. We walk. With the money saved on rego/insurance etc we can pay people to drive us if we need to get driven and still save a bucket load and stay fit. My parents were WW2 kids and I've learned a lot from them about what one "needs". I love it when I go on hols without the car. If I still had kids at home, the car would be going. It's just not economically viable for two people when we can walk everywhere we need to go.

Yeah that makes sense. I know people who just rent a car whenever they need one or of course Uber and end up way ahead.

freediver wrote on Nov 9^th, 2019 at 6:42pm:

People think they are no better off because the only way they have to compare their wealth is by comparing themselves to their neighbours. They would never think to compare how well off they are to people in foreign countries, unless those countries have the same culture anyway, and they also don't think to compare themselves to how well off their ancestors were. We have bigger and better houses, cars, entertainment, medicine, food, feminine hygiene products, just about anything you can think of. And we have the choice of weather to acquire those better things.

its the mental issues I have the next generation will be far worse than this lot of semi adults...

kids of 4 have smart phones... and the buggers know how to use them....kids have to be entertained 24/7 today....no one uses their imagination....its all done for them   and it all costs money...if only they realise the best things in life are free....and that is so true.

Jasin wrote on Nov 9^th, 2019 at 9:38pm:

Well let's just say that 'Women' seem to better Men at SPORT in Australia! Australian Women are 'dominating' Australian Men in many ways. ...but in Australia, North America, South America & the Middle-East - women do do better at Sport than men. [funny how the world works eh ;)]

;D And how many "women" in sport are men?

---

Cods when your village is going to get over run by barbarians who are going to kill you or enslave you then its all hands on deck, men women and children.

But I wasn't really talking about the that, btw you guys did a great job.

It was peace time when the oligarchy thought of taking women out of the home and putting that 9 to 5 ball and chian on their ankles.

Now some how I cant see women liking the idea of handling steel and iron, machinery etc etc

You know getting grease under their nails and developing hands of a brick layer.

On the other side brain power is the same so yeah sure I can see the appeal of a white collar job for women.

The bottom line is you girls got duped and still believe the propaganda till this day....... ;D

This'll be good....

Jasin wrote on Nov 9^th, 2019 at 9:38pm:

Well let's just say that 'Women' seem to better Men at SPORT in Australia! Australian Women are 'dominating' Australian Men in many ways. ...but in Australia, North America, South America & the Middle-East - women do do better at Sport than men. [funny how the world works eh ;)]

Generalisations and totally separate competitions aside - you're right....

One lass wins tennis - women are better... a women's cricket team wins a game or two - they're better...

I'm surprised there isn't more hoop-la that Ash Barty is a 10-percenter... Indigenous are all better at everything etc..  ::)

What nonsense - how would they go against a men's cricket team from lowly Sri Lanka?

Getchu head outchu ass, boy!

Gnads wrote on Nov 10^th, 2019 at 8:34am:

Jasin wrote on Nov 9th, 2019 at 9:38pm: Well let's just say that 'Women' seem to better Men at SPORT in Australia! Australian Women are 'dominating' Australian Men in many ways. ...but in Australia, North America, South America & the Middle-East - women do do better at Sport than men. [funny how the world works eh ;)] ;D And how many "women" in sport are men?

Time to ban that sh1t ...

Ajax wrote on Nov 10^th, 2019 at 10:35am:

Cods when your village is going to get over run by barbarians who are going to kill you or enslave you then its all hands on deck, men women and children. But I wasn't really talking about the that, btw you guys did a great job. It was peace time when the oligarchy thought of taking women out of the home and putting that 9 to 5 ball and chian on their ankles. Now some how I cant see women liking the idea of handling steel and iron, machinery etc etc You know getting grease under their nails and developing hands of a brick layer. On the other side brain power is the same so yeah sure I can see the appeal of a white collar job for women. The bottom line is you girls got duped and still believe the propaganda till this day....... ;D

The problem is that the white collar work has increasingly been reserved for women via affirmative action - leaving men to do all the dirty, heavy work, often for less overall income package... this is something forced on us of the West  by stupid governments bent on securing and controlling as much pussy as possible for themselves, basking in the warm glow of being 'loved' by countless women in return for handing out favouritism...

Then the same nonsense clowns say this must be proof that women are better.. what utter nonsense.... if aquascoot puts a horse in a poor paddock with poor water - it stands to reason that horse will not fare as well as the one in the good paddock with fine water...

Time for Genuine Equality ....man up or leave the field, ladies...

Now .... ask me again why labor is having such trouble getting elected, when their opposition are a bunch of self-serving dirt bags ........ because Labor has no balls left ... it's either sheilas or pussy-whipped 'men' like Shorten  raised by his mum and that Victorian d1ck and the one just gone in NSW - couldn't even defeat Cap'n Hooknose the Devastator of all she sees by selling it off and causing cost rises and inflation and reduced standard of living for the majority like a true Wop Petty Fascist Lord/Lady of All They Survey (Jesus) ....... and they can't put a decent policy together or even sell it..

Man up of leave the field, ladies.... the kitchen is hot when you are forced into Reality...

Now  bring on the apologists to tell me all about the 6.4 women in building trades as brickies etc...(BS..BS)...   ::)  ::)

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Nov 10^th, 2019 at 11:21am:

Gnads wrote on Nov 10th, 2019 at 8:34am: Jasin wrote on Nov 9th, 2019 at 9:38pm: Well let's just say that 'Women' seem to better Men at SPORT in Australia! Australian Women are 'dominating' Australian Men in many ways. ...but in Australia, North America, South America & the Middle-East - women do do better at Sport than men. [funny how the world works eh ;)] ;D And how many "women" in sport are men? Time to ban that sh1t ...

Its up to the girls to be united on this and take a stand.

Shut that UN right up and then tell'm where to go.

I'm sure the AFL asked the girls if they wanted a 220lb (Hanna Mouncey) gorilla running around with them on the field and the overwhelming majority said NO...!

Take a stand girls draw the line in the sand........ 8-)

Setanta wrote on Nov 9^th, 2019 at 9:32pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 9th, 2019 at 8:52pm: Setanta wrote on Nov 9th, 2019 at 6:44pm: cods wrote on Nov 9th, 2019 at 6:29pm: do you have any idea how much it costs to run one car in a year??? I still have the car downstairs but it hasn't been registered for about four years. We walk. With the money saved on rego/insurance etc we can pay people to drive us if we need to get driven and still save a bucket load and stay fit. My parents were WW2 kids and I've learned a lot from them about what one "needs". Country living.  A great alternative to Sydney where you can't move from/without a car unless you live and work within country distances - millions of course don't. The masses yearning for tree change explained. . There are over twice as many people living in Perth than lived in the whole state of WA when I left Perth. You'll never get away from them.

Well, you try...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooY_z8ar4kU

Ajax wrote on Nov 9^th, 2019 at 3:42pm:

You girls had it good once, you were your own boss, you looked after your house your kids, you could go for a coffee break with friends or do some shopping anytime you felt like it well almost. You had the good life, once just being carefree women doing women’s things spending men’s money, men didn’t really mind, they never do. But then a hand full of these old rich men (the oligarchy),  the ones feminist seem to hate the most had a light bulb idea. Must of gone something like this, Hey you guys do you realise that half the world’s population stays at home and doesn’t contribute to our nest egg in some form or another. So they invented feminism and with money and the help of organisation like the UN which they run inserted some rebel rousers into this community of women like a capuchin monkey tethered to a string dancing to the music box and presto feminism was born, burning bras was in fashion and women didn’t want women’s things anymore, they wanted to be men. So today most women go around trying to be like men instead of being like women you’re always going to be a second class citizen that way, just the same if men went around trying to be women. Well girls you’ve been had big time, you’ve been saddled like men have from the beginning of time to do the heavy lifting. So roll up those sleeves welcome to the club and heave ho your life away, those wonderful yester years are well and truly behind all of you whether young or old. As for myself I’ve been working since I was 13 years old, if I win tatts there’s no way I will keep the 9 to 5, I’ll kick it into the stands hopefully never to be seen again. I certainly want to be free of that ball and chain, I will find other things to do like golf, overseas trips and such but for now I can only dream. https://i.ibb.co/kSDCx6V/WCDGJPG.jpg

The timeline here is mixed up. Feminism begins as far back as at least the late 1800s. Women don't begin to enter the workforce full time in large numbers until the 1960-70s. Additionally, the U.N. came to be in 1945.

I've read theories that feminism was invented by capitalists to enlarge profits a few times. But, these theories are retrospective.The literature at the time doesn't indicate it was about businesses or profit. It was centred on rights. Perhaps there was some devious hidden scheme by money makers, but I've yet to see any evidence of it.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 10^th, 2019 at 6:51pm:

Ajax wrote on Nov 9th, 2019 at 3:42pm: You girls had it good once, you were your own boss, you looked after your house your kids, you could go for a coffee break with friends or do some shopping anytime you felt like it well almost. You had the good life, once just being carefree women doing women’s things spending men’s money, men didn’t really mind, they never do. But then a hand full of these old rich men (the oligarchy),  the ones feminist seem to hate the most had a light bulb idea. Must of gone something like this, Hey you guys do you realise that half the world’s population stays at home and doesn’t contribute to our nest egg in some form or another. So they invented feminism and with money and the help of organisation like the UN which they run inserted some rebel rousers into this community of women like a capuchin monkey tethered to a string dancing to the music box and presto feminism was born, burning bras was in fashion and women didn’t want women’s things anymore, they  or forgotten about.wanted to be men. So today most women go around trying to be like men instead of being like women you’re always going to be a second class citizen that way, just the same if men went around trying to be women. Well girls you’ve been had big time, you’ve been saddled like men have from the beginning of time to do the heavy lifting. So roll up those sleeves welcome to the club and heave ho your life away, those wonderful yester years are well and truly behind all of you whether young or old. As for myself I’ve been working since I was 13 years old, if I win tatts there’s no way I will keep the 9 to 5, I’ll kick it into the stands hopefully never to be seen again. I certainly want to be free of that ball and chain, I will find other things to do like golf, overseas trips and such but for now I can only dream. https://i.ibb.co/kSDCx6V/WCDGJPG.jpg The timeline here is mixed up. Feminism begins as far back as at least the late 1800s. Women don't begin to enter the workforce full time in large numbers until the 1960-70s. Additionally, the U.N. came to be in 1945. I've read theories that feminism was invented by capitalists to enlarge profits a few times. But, these theories are retrospective.The literature at the time doesn't indicate it was about businesses or profit. It was centred on rights. Perhaps there was some devious hidden scheme by money makers, but I've yet to see any evidence of it.

While all that is true, how were the effects of doubling household incomes not seen? Were they ignored? It's basic economics that if you radically increase people's income, prices will rise to meet them. The end result is that two people are now working to obtain what one could.

Why did it take 70 odd years of feminism to see it as a profit maker?

Setanta wrote on Nov 10^th, 2019 at 6:56pm:

While all that is true, how were the effects of doubling household incomes not seen? Were they ignored? It's basic economics that if you radically increase people's income, prices will rise to meet them. The end result is that two people are now working to obtain what one could.

The prices of most things have fallen in real terms since the 1960s/70s
The one exception, of course, is Housing, and I agree that skyrocketing house prices and at least partly due to dual incomes (other reasons are population increases, more building regulations and larger houses).

Ajax wrote on Nov 9^th, 2019 at 3:42pm:

You girls had it good once, you were your own boss, you looked after your house your kids, you could go for a coffee break with friends or do some shopping anytime you felt like it well almost. You had the good life, once just being carefree women doing women’s things spending men’s money, men didn’t really mind, they never do.

So how far would you like to go back?

When women got paid less for doing the same job?
When women had to resign from their jobs when they got married?
When women couldn't get a Bank loan without a male guarantor?

or perhaps you'd like to go right back to when women weren't allowed to vote
When

The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 11^th, 2019 at 10:54am:

Ajax wrote on Nov 9th, 2019 at 3:42pm: You girls had it good once, you were your own boss, you looked after your house your kids, you could go for a coffee break with friends or do some shopping anytime you felt like it well almost. You had the good life, once just being carefree women doing women’s things spending men’s money, men didn’t really mind, they never do. So how far would you like to go back? When women got paid less for doing the same job? When women had to resign from their jobs when they got married? When women couldn't get a Bank loan without a male guarantor? or perhaps you'd like to go right back to when women weren't allowed to vote When

.. part of the price paid for being kept for life without working hard .....

Most men didn't have the vote here until 1897 or so - at the first opportunity to vote on the issue - the vast majority of those men voted for female suffrage...

In contrast, the strident and violent activities of the suffragettes in Britain cause female suffrage to be delayed until 1920...

Thank you for coming...

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Nov 11^th, 2019 at 11:28am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 11th, 2019 at 10:54am: Ajax wrote on Nov 9th, 2019 at 3:42pm: You girls had it good once, you were your own boss, you looked after your house your kids, you could go for a coffee break with friends or do some shopping anytime you felt like it well almost. You had the good life, once just being carefree women doing women’s things spending men’s money, men didn’t really mind, they never do. So how far would you like to go back? When women got paid less for doing the same job? When women had to resign from their jobs when they got married? When women couldn't get a Bank loan without a male guarantor? or perhaps you'd like to go right back to when women weren't allowed to vote When .. part of the price paid for being kept for life without working hard ..... Most men didn't have the vote here until 1897 or so - at the first opportunity to vote on the issue - the vast majority of those men voted for female suffrage... In contrast, the strident and violent activities of the suffragettes in Britain cause female suffrage to be delayed until 1920... Thank you for coming...

how do you know that grap???>...the women were not listened too   they chained themselves to railing to get attention      and thats what women have had do through out  the centuries  .. women writers and painters worked under  a male name   for that very reason,... no one would listen to them with a female name... ::) ::)..

you have to remember this has been years and years.....being treated like second class citizens  will never be right grap....no matter which sex is kept in their place....

everything and I mean everything [in 2019] should be equal....genda should not come into account....in 99.9% OF CASES.......as we all know there are always exceptions..  and I accept that!

Way back in the day when men went out to work and women stayed home, the women tended to "rule the roost" and worked at home doing mundane stuff like the weekly wash (minus the washing machine)which took most of the day and ironing everything (including sheets). Tending the vegetable garden so the family would have fresh veges for dinner. Baking (including bread). I doubt that they had much time for the "coffee with friends". 

Things changed when the "burn the bra" brigade started. However, most women did not become "feminists".  Husbands still expected their wives to stay at home once they had children, at least until the children began school.  The Government didn't hand out anything to compensate this. They managed. Buying a house still only needed the "bread winner's" salary to get a Bank loan. The usual house was a 3 bedroom place, probably "near a school" as the kids had to walk there.

Then the "world changed" and suddenly, everybody needed a Big House in a "nice street" with "new cars" and "perfectly decked out children who attended the right school".  To attain this, the Wife needed to go to work to help pay for this stuff. Children were put into "child minding centres" so they could associate with all the other "perfectly decked out kids from the right school" to take notice of Greenie Teachers and so forth.

Now we have some kids who believe that The World will end by 2030 (or whenever) and they don't take any notice of their Parents (who are too busy working to pay the bills) or anybody else. However, this lot will go to University and probably never work and stay living at home until they are 30+.
Times have changed - but not for everybody.

I was brought up in the 70s. Mum didn't go out to work but she was involved in various community things.

I think she was a "strong woman". Dad was the man of the house - in name only.  I never, ever saw them argue.

ChrisP wrote on Nov 11^th, 2019 at 3:56pm:

Way back in the day when men went out to work and women stayed home, the women tended to "rule the roost" and worked at home doing mundane stuff like the weekly wash (minus the washing machine)which took most of the day and ironing everything (including sheets). Tending the vegetable garden so the family would have fresh veges for dinner. Baking (including bread). I doubt that they had much time for the "coffee with friends".  Things changed when the "burn the bra" brigade started. However, most women did not become "feminists".  Husbands still expected their wives to stay at home once they had children, at least until the children began school.  The Government didn't hand out anything to compensate this. They managed. Buying a house still only needed the "bread winner's" salary to get a Bank loan. The usual house was a 3 bedroom place, probably "near a school" as the kids had to walk there. Then the "world changed" and suddenly, everybody needed a Big House in a "nice street" with "new cars" and "perfectly decked out children who attended the right school".  To attain this, the Wife needed to go to work to help pay for this stuff. Children were put into "child minding centres" so they could associate with all the other "perfectly decked out kids from the right school" to take notice of Greenie Teachers and so forth. Now we have some kids who believe that The World will end by 2030 (or whenever) and they don't take any notice of their Parents (who are too busy working to pay the bills) or anybody else. However, this lot will go to University and probably never work and stay living at home until they are 30+. Times have changed - but not for everybody.

I think you'll find there was a far broader range than just pure housework woman all the way to laid back woman....most had time for their weekly tennis of similar... my mother did...

Men worked all day at drudgery, too... in most cases... forget about the feminist drivel about how women were excluded from professions - so were men, fer chris' sake.. mostly by not having enough money to go to uni and having a family to feed - a situation that persisted for many when free uni came into vogue... which was what kick-started your 'ferminist' drivel..

While many women could go get a degree, most men were still tied to providing - and BTW - still are even when they no longer have a family of their own, since it has been repossessed by the dispensing machine....

Get with it, son...

cods wrote on Nov 11^th, 2019 at 2:45pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Nov 11th, 2019 at 11:28am: The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 11th, 2019 at 10:54am: Ajax wrote on Nov 9th, 2019 at 3:42pm: You girls had it good once, you were your own boss, you looked after your house your kids, you could go for a coffee break with friends or do some shopping anytime you felt like it well almost. You had the good life, once just being carefree women doing women’s things spending men’s money, men didn’t really mind, they never do. So how far would you like to go back? When women got paid less for doing the same job? When women had to resign from their jobs when they got married? When women couldn't get a Bank loan without a male guarantor? or perhaps you'd like to go right back to when women weren't allowed to vote When .. part of the price paid for being kept for life without working hard ..... Most men didn't have the vote here until 1897 or so - at the first opportunity to vote on the issue - the vast majority of those men voted for female suffrage... In contrast, the strident and violent activities of the suffragettes in Britain cause female suffrage to be delayed until 1920... Thank you for coming... how do you know that grap???>...the women were not listened too   they chained themselves to railing to get attention      and thats what women have had do through out  the centuries  .. women writers and painters worked under  a male name   for that very reason,... no one would listen to them with a female name... ::) ::).. you have to remember this has been years and years.....being treated like second class citizens  will never be right grap....no matter which sex is kept in their place.... everything and I mean everything [in 2019] should be equal....genda should not come into account....in 99.9% OF CASES.......as we all know there are always exceptions..  and I accept that!

I've linked it before, codsy - several times - British Parliament rejected the idea of female suffrage because the actions of the suffragettes were too violent and proved that women were simply not responsible enough to have a vote...

Try this one:-

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/02/suffragettes-london-holloway-prison-pankhurst-pubs

"Around 300 suffragettes were jailed at Holloway for arson, window-smashing and other acts of sabotage,"

"Many government offices, including the War Office and 10 Downing Street, as well as the National Gallery, St Paul’s and the Bank of England, were the targets of window smashing and bombs by suffragettes who gathered in West End tearooms and restaurants, like the Criterion on Piccadilly, to organise."

... don't filter your beer through dog turds.... read it and interpret the real activity going on... they burned and smashed .... would you consider that 'responsible' if it were your home?

The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 11^th, 2019 at 10:54am:

Ajax wrote on Nov 9th, 2019 at 3:42pm: You girls had it good once, you were your own boss, you looked after your house your kids, you could go for a coffee break with friends or do some shopping anytime you felt like it well almost. You had the good life, once just being carefree women doing women’s things spending men’s money, men didn’t really mind, they never do. So how far would you like to go back? When women got paid less for doing the same job? When women had to resign from their jobs when they got married? When women couldn't get a Bank loan without a male guarantor? or perhaps you'd like to go right back to when women weren't allowed to vote When

I’m talking about after WW2 no wonder we can never ever communicate, just like now back then and beyond when a major disaster happened the oligarchy saw it as an opportunity to change the world to their liking.

That’s why neo-liberalism took so long, as long as there was communism the other side of the coin had to look like milk and honey, with the destruction of communism there was no other side so we went from the Keynesian model of capitalism to neo-liberalism, the system we have today where corporations rule the roost and governments are relegated to being CEO’s .

I’m talking about the 50’s & 60’s when a woman could wash the clothes with a washing machine or the dishes with the dish washer or use the vacuum cleaner.

Those are the days that women had it good, too good for their own liking, of course it’s only natural that not all women wanted a husband, children and a household to look after, still the same today and I’d say it’s from eternity.

If we go too far back I’m sure women toiled the land just as hard as their husbands and partners, there was never an age like the 50’s & 60’s nor is there ever likely to be one again.

Not now that the oligarchy rule our lives.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Nov 11^th, 2019 at 4:56pm:

cods wrote on Nov 11th, 2019 at 2:45pm: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Nov 11th, 2019 at 11:28am: The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 11th, 2019 at 10:54am: Ajax wrote on Nov 9th, 2019 at 3:42pm: You girls had it good once, you were your own boss, you looked after your house your kids, you could go for a coffee break with friends or do some shopping anytime you felt like it well almost. You had the good life, once just being carefree women doing women’s things spending men’s money, men didn’t really mind, they never do. So how far would you like to go back? When women got paid less for doing the same job? When women had to resign from their jobs when they got married? When women couldn't get a Bank loan without a male guarantor? or perhaps you'd like to go right back to when women weren't allowed to vote When .. part of the price paid for being kept for life without working hard ..... Most men didn't have the vote here until 1897 or so - at the first opportunity to vote on the issue - the vast majority of those men voted for female suffrage... In contrast, the strident and violent activities of the suffragettes in Britain cause female suffrage to be delayed until 1920... Thank you for coming... how do you know that grap???>...the women were not listened too   they chained themselves to railing to get attention      and thats what women have had do through out  the centuries  .. women writers and painters worked under  a male name   for that very reason,... no one would listen to them with a female name... ::) ::).. you have to remember this has been years and years.....being treated like second class citizens  will never be right grap....no matter which sex is kept in their place.... everything and I mean everything [in 2019] should be equal....genda should not come into account....in 99.9% OF CASES.......as we all know there are always exceptions..  and I accept that! I've linked it before, codsy - several times - British Parliament rejected the idea of female suffrage because the actions of the suffragettes were too violent and proved that women were simply not responsible enough to have a vote... Try this one:- https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/02/suffragettes-london-holloway-prison-pankhurst-pubs "Around 300 suffragettes were jailed at Holloway for arson, window-smashing and other acts of sabotage," "Many government offices, including the War Office and 10 Downing Street, as well as the National Gallery, St Paul’s and the Bank of England, were the targets of window smashing and bombs by suffragettes who gathered in West End tearooms and restaurants, like the Criterion on Piccadilly, to organise." ... don't filter your beer through dog turds.... read it and interpret the real activity going on... they burned and smashed .... would you consider that 'responsible' if it were your home?

like I said grap    TO GET ATTENTION>...

do you think if they had sung songs and banged the big drum like the Salvos  they would have been heard in WESTMINSTER?....

they shouldnt have had to beg or smash windows   females are not the VIOLENT ones.....

but if its the only way....

I would do the same myself  if it was happening to day..

women had no income at all   thats why they married anyone   because that was all they could do.... 

no work or pay for them... it was a terrible time for women   UNTIL THE WAR....and then like the sleeping giant women woke up and realised the country couldnt work WITHOUT THEM....

dont you think its dreadful  300 women ended up in jail because all they wanted was the vote?

cods women have always been the rock or backbone of the household and families from the ages dear.

They rule the roost, make no mistake.

Take the woman out of the home and you're not left with much.

I have read that one of the oligarchies main objectives is to destroy the family unit, the family unit is what builds a country what gives us all values.

What would we be without it.

A bunch of drunken party goers...?!?!...with no responsibilities.


Quote:

From the movie my big fat greek wedding. The man maybe the head of the family but the woman is the neck and she can turn the head at will...... ;) :) ;D Or something along those lines.

Ajax wrote on Nov 11^th, 2019 at 5:51pm:

cods women have always been the rock or backbone of the household and families from the ages dear. They rule the roost, make no mistake. Take the woman out of the home and you're not left with much. I have read that one of the oligarchies main objectives is to destroy the family unit, the family unit is what builds a country what gives us all values. What would we be without it. A bunch of drunken party goers...?!?!...with no responsibilities. Quote: From the movie my big fat greek wedding. The man maybe the head of the family but the woman is the neck and she can turn the head at will...... ;) :) ;D Or something along those lines.

AJAX..

I am talking COUNTRY  not the home  how bloody condescending is that.... of course the home would fall apart without the women in it......

women have always known that.....do you recall a time when a wife called her husband Mr Brown  or Mr White.....we were servants...unpaid of course..

cods wrote on Nov 11^th, 2019 at 6:05pm:

Ajax wrote on Nov 11th, 2019 at 5:51pm: cods women have always been the rock or backbone of the household and families from the ages dear. They rule the roost, make no mistake. Take the woman out of the home and you're not left with much. I have read that one of the oligarchies main objectives is to destroy the family unit, the family unit is what builds a country what gives us all values. What would we be without it. A bunch of drunken party goers...?!?!...with no responsibilities. Quote: From the movie my big fat greek wedding. The man maybe the head of the family but the woman is the neck and she can turn the head at will...... ;) :) ;D Or something along those lines. AJAX.. I am talking COUNTRY  not the home  how bloody condescending is that.... of course the home would fall apart without the women in it...... women have always known that.....do you recall a time when a wife called her husband Mr Brown  or Mr White.....we were servants...unpaid of course..

Well I don't know about you cods but I've never thought about being payed to look after my family, I do it cause I love them.

And country was there somewhere.

Ajax wrote on Nov 11^th, 2019 at 6:16pm:

cods wrote on Nov 11th, 2019 at 6:05pm: Ajax wrote on Nov 11th, 2019 at 5:51pm: cods women have always been the rock or backbone of the household and families from the ages dear. They rule the roost, make no mistake. Take the woman out of the home and you're not left with much. I have read that one of the oligarchies main objectives is to destroy the family unit, the family unit is what builds a country what gives us all values. What would we be without it. A bunch of drunken party goers...?!?!...with no responsibilities. Quote: From the movie my big fat greek wedding. The man maybe the head of the family but the woman is the neck and she can turn the head at will...... ;) :) ;D Or something along those lines. AJAX.. I am talking COUNTRY  not the home  how bloody condescending is that.... of course the home would fall apart without the women in it...... women have always known that.....do you recall a time when a wife called her husband Mr Brown  or Mr White.....we were servants...unpaid of course.. Well I don't know about you cods but I've never thought about being payed to look after my family, I do it cause I love them. And country was there somewhere.

so where would you get the money to spend to look after your family.......its a conundrum isnt it?... :)

dont forget thats your unpaid job...

cods wrote on Nov 11^th, 2019 at 5:39pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Nov 11th, 2019 at 4:56pm: cods wrote on Nov 11th, 2019 at 2:45pm: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Nov 11th, 2019 at 11:28am: The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 11th, 2019 at 10:54am: Ajax wrote on Nov 9th, 2019 at 3:42pm: You girls had it good once, you were your own boss, you looked after your house your kids, you could go for a coffee break with friends or do some shopping anytime you felt like it well almost. You had the good life, once just being carefree women doing women’s things spending men’s money, men didn’t really mind, they never do. So how far would you like to go back? When women got paid less for doing the same job? When women had to resign from their jobs when they got married? When women couldn't get a Bank loan without a male guarantor? or perhaps you'd like to go right back to when women weren't allowed to vote When .. part of the price paid for being kept for life without working hard ..... Most men didn't have the vote here until 1897 or so - at the first opportunity to vote on the issue - the vast majority of those men voted for female suffrage... In contrast, the strident and violent activities of the suffragettes in Britain cause female suffrage to be delayed until 1920... Thank you for coming... how do you know that grap???>...the women were not listened too   they chained themselves to railing to get attention      and thats what women have had do through out  the centuries  .. women writers and painters worked under  a male name   for that very reason,... no one would listen to them with a female name... ::) ::).. you have to remember this has been years and years.....being treated like second class citizens  will never be right grap....no matter which sex is kept in their place.... everything and I mean everything [in 2019] should be equal....genda should not come into account....in 99.9% OF CASES.......as we all know there are always exceptions..  and I accept that! I've linked it before, codsy - several times - British Parliament rejected the idea of female suffrage because the actions of the suffragettes were too violent and proved that women were simply not responsible enough to have a vote... Try this one:- https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/02/suffragettes-london-holloway-prison-pankhurst-pubs "Around 300 suffragettes were jailed at Holloway for arson, window-smashing and other acts of sabotage," "Many government offices, including the War Office and 10 Downing Street, as well as the National Gallery, St Paul’s and the Bank of England, were the targets of window smashing and bombs by suffragettes who gathered in West End tearooms and restaurants, like the Criterion on Piccadilly, to organise." ... don't filter your beer through dog turds.... read it and interpret the real activity going on... they burned and smashed .... would you consider that 'responsible' if it were your home? like I said grap    TO GET ATTENTION>... do you think if they had sung songs and banged the big drum like the Salvos  they would have been heard in WESTMINSTER?.... they shouldnt have had to beg or smash windows   females are not the VIOLENT ones..... but if its the only way.... I would do the same myself  if it was happening to day.. women had no income at all   thats why they married anyone   because that was all they could do....  no work or pay for them... it was a terrible time for women   UNTIL THE WAR....and then like the sleeping giant women woke up and realised the country couldnt work WITHOUT THEM.... dont you think its dreadful  300 women ended up in jail because all they wanted was the vote?

They WERE heard.. and Westminster refused women the vote until 1920 because of their antics... again - I ask you - would YOU think it was right if it were your home etc, or if a group of aggrieved people were going around setting bombs and destroying private property, assaulting ministers of state, and setting fire to homes and government buildings?

Jeez, cods - you'd be the first to condemn that kind of thing.. but since it's the Holy Suffragettes/Feminists it's now all right?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating - their behaviour set back the rights of women in Britain for over twenty years compared to 'the colonies' which , without that kind of terrorist behaviour to deal with and judge by, were much quicker off the mark.

"1912 was a turning point for the suffragettes, as they turned to using more militant tactics and began a window-smashing campaign. Some members of the WSPU, including Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence and her husband Frederick, disagreed with this strategy but Christabel Pankhurst ignored their objections. In response to this, the Government ordered the arrest of the WSPU leaders and, although Christabel Pankhurst escaped to France, the Pethick-Lawrences were arrested, tried and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. On their release, the Pethick-Lawrences began to speak out publicly against the window-smashing campaign, arguing that it would lose support for the cause, and eventually they were expelled from the WSPU. Having lost control of Votes for Women the WSPU began to publish their own newspaper under the title The Suffragette.

The campaign was then escalated, with the suffragettes chaining themselves to railings, setting fire to post box contents, smashing windows and eventually detonating bombs. Some radical techniques used by the suffragettes were learned from Russian exiles from tsarism who had escaped to England. In 1914, at least seven churches were bombed or set on fire across the United Kingdom, including Westminster Abbey, where an explosion aimed at destroying the 700-year-old Coronation Chair, only caused minor damage. Places that wealthy people, typically men, frequented were also burnt and destroyed whilst left unattended so that there was little risk to life, including cricket pavilions, horse-racing pavilions, churches, castles and the second homes of the wealthy. The also burnt the slogan "Votes for Women" into the grass of golf couses.[34] Pinfold Manor in Surrey, which was being built for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, David Lloyd George, was targeted with two bombs on 19 February 1913, only one of which exploded, causing significant damage; in her memoirs, Sylvia Pankhurst said that Emily Davison had carried out the attack. There were 250 arson or destruction attacks in a six-month period in 1913  and in April the newspapers reported "What might hve been the most serious outrage yet perpetrated by the Suffragettes":

    Policemen discovered inside the railings of the Bank of England a bomb timed to explode at midnight. It contained 3oz of powerful explosive, some metal, and a number of hairpins - the last named constituent, no doubt to make known the source of the intended sensation. The bomb was similar to that used in the attempt to blow up Oxted Railway Station. It contained a watch with attachment for explosion, but was clumsily fitted. If it had exploded when the streets were crowded a number of people would probably have been injured.[35]

There are reports in the Parliamentary Papers which include lists of the 'incendiary devices', explosions, artwork destruction (including an axe attack upon a painting of The Duke of Wellington in the National Gallery), arson attacks, window-breaking, postbox burning and telegraph cable cutting, that took place during the most militant years, from 1910 to 1914.[36] Both suffragettes and police spoke of a "Reign of Terror"; newspaper headlines referred to "Suffragette Terrorism".

One suffragette, Emily Davison, died under the King's horse, Anmer, at The Derby on 4 June 1913. It is debated whether she was trying to pull down the horse, attach a suffragette scarf or banner to it, or commit suicide to become a martyr to the cause. However, recent analysis of the film of the event suggests that she was merely trying to attach a scarf to the horse, and the suicide theory seems unlikely as she was carrying a return train ticket from Epsom and had holiday plans with her sister in the near future."

There was also an attack on Winston Churchill in a public street...

Now - if the Mosque Sympathizers League carried out those same actions........ what would your, and official and public reaction, be? 

What if the Bent-one Tarrant Club did those same things, cods?

What about Greg's 'white supremacists'.. or the Warriors of the Aboriginal Resistance?

Still OK?

Why, in many women's minds and those of  many 'men', are these same actions by a group of women somehow sacred rights and to be admired?  If they attacked your son and burnt your house.....

Come on.... fair answer...

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Nov 11^th, 2019 at 7:05pm:

"1912 was a turning point for the suffragettes, as they turned to using more militant tactics and began a window-smashing campaign. Some members of the WSPU, including Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence and her husband Frederick, disagreed with this strategy but Christabel Pankhurst ignored their objections. In response to this, the Government ordered the arrest of the WSPU leaders and, although Christabel Pankhurst escaped to France, the Pethick-Lawrences were arrested, tried and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. On their release, the Pethick-Lawrences began to speak out publicly against the window-smashing campaign, arguing that it would lose support for the cause, and eventually they were expelled from the WSPU. Having lost control of Votes for Women the WSPU began to publish their own newspaper under the title The Suffragette. The campaign was then escalated, with the suffragettes chaining themselves to railings, setting fire to post box contents, smashing windows and eventually detonating bombs. Some radical techniques used by the suffragettes were learned from Russian exiles from tsarism who had escaped to England. In 1914, at least seven churches were bombed or set on fire across the United Kingdom, including Westminster Abbey, where an explosion aimed at destroying the 700-year-old Coronation Chair, only caused minor damage. Places that wealthy people, typically men, frequented were also burnt and destroyed whilst left unattended so that there was little risk to life, including cricket pavilions, horse-racing pavilions, churches, castles and the second homes of the wealthy. The also burnt the slogan "Votes for Women" into the grass of golf couses.[34] Pinfold Manor in Surrey, which was being built for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, David Lloyd George, was targeted with two bombs on 19 February 1913, only one of which exploded, causing significant damage; in her memoirs, Sylvia Pankhurst said that Emily Davison had carried out the attack. There were 250 arson or destruction attacks in a six-month period in 1913  and in April the newspapers reported "What might hve been the most serious outrage yet perpetrated by the Suffragettes":     Policemen discovered inside the railings of the Bank of England a bomb timed to explode at midnight. It contained 3oz of powerful explosive, some metal, and a number of hairpins - the last named constituent, no doubt to make known the source of the intended sensation. The bomb was similar to that used in the attempt to blow up Oxted Railway Station. It contained a watch with attachment for explosion, but was clumsily fitted. If it had exploded when the streets were crowded a number of people would probably have been injured.[35] There are reports in the Parliamentary Papers which include lists of the 'incendiary devices', explosions, artwork destruction (including an axe attack upon a painting of The Duke of Wellington in the National Gallery), arson attacks, window-breaking, postbox burning and telegraph cable cutting, that took place during the most militant years, from 1910 to 1914.[36] Both suffragettes and police spoke of a "Reign of Terror"; newspaper headlines referred to "Suffragette Terrorism". One suffragette, Emily Davison, died under the King's horse, Anmer, at The Derby on 4 June 1913. It is debated whether she was trying to pull down the horse, attach a suffragette scarf or banner to it, or commit suicide to become a martyr to the cause. However, recent analysis of the film of the event suggests that she was merely trying to attach a scarf to the horse, and the suicide theory seems unlikely as she was carrying a return train ticket from Epsom and had holiday plans with her sister in the near future." There was also an attack on Winston Churchill in a public street... Now - if the Mosque Sympathizers League carried out those same actions........ what would your, and official and public reaction, be?  What if the Bent-one Tarrant Club did those same things, cods? What about Greg's 'white supremacists'.. or the Warriors of the Aboriginal Resistance? Still OK? Why, in many women's minds and those of  many 'men', are these same actions by a group of women somehow sacred rights and to be admired?  If they attacked your son and burnt your house..... Come on.... fair answer...

here we go... you were not there neither was I.....bombs are not the usual weapons of war for women....how do you know  they were all done by women????????....  you dont do you?..  its assumed   and of course they were sitting ducks...and rather aggressive for those times......

no one is CLAIMING their behavior was RIGHT... all I am saying is.. they were driven to taking certain actions.....you always have this MEN against women  approach   this isnt about which sex  you are...its about the LAW    and the people who controlled the LAW  in those times...

dont try to shut women up by bringing in the poor male :'( :'(  look what we have to put up with look what women put us poor males through...where in the world are mens rights.. boo hoo..

you have had RIGHTS for donkeys years.....

as you keep reminding us   women only got the VOTE IN 1920..

100 bloody years ago.....and we are in the year 2019.........so believe me   women were treated like crap for a lot longer than you poor men..... >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

"here we go... you were not there neither was I.....bombs are not the usual weapons of war for women....how do you know  they were all done by women????????....  you dont do you?..  its assumed   and of course they were sitting ducks...and rather aggressive for those times......

no one is CLAIMING their behavior was RIGHT... all I am saying is.. they were driven to taking certain actions.....you always have this MEN against women  approach   this isnt about which sex  you are...its about the LAW    and the people who controlled the LAW  in those times...

dont try to shut women up by bringing in the poor male Cry Cry  look what we have to put up with look what women put us poor males through...where in the world are mens rights.. boo hoo..

you have had RIGHTS for donkeys years.....

as you keep reminding us   women only got the VOTE IN 1920..

100 bloody years ago.....and we are in the year 2019.........so believe me   women were treated like crap for a lot longer than you poor men..... "

The police records and the records of Parliament say they did it, cods... would you suggest a government would bother to lie to that extent just to keep women from getting the vote?

Nobody is 'driven' to take extreme actions - they can choose to abide by laws or not... and gentle persuasion would have worked far better...

I have had my Rights for as long as every women alive born at the same time, cods.... it was not a Right to go to work, or whatever... and I, for one, never prevented anyone from receiving equal pay etc... in fact, like the Koons not having the vote etc, I was shocked to learn that was the case with women's pay.

As for 1920 - THAT WAS BRITAIN AND BECAUSE OF THE SUFFRAGETTE EXTREMES!!  Got it?  Australian men voted to have universal suffrage at Federation... why do you deliberately confuse Britain and Australia in this regard, and deny facts?

On the other hand - due to being born sooner - my grandmother had the vote before my grandfather... to vote is a Right - all the other things you talk about are not 'rights'...

What 'rights' did I have that women didn't have?  I was in the armed forces before I got to vote..... the money was better and they gave you food and shoes... is that a 'right'?

Sorry - but you are ranting now... and where did I say anything about 'poor men' - I offer you facts - and it is not I who am working on a men v women thing - it is you working on a women v men thing...

The fact is that the suffragettes caused their own problems and the  delay in British women getting full voting rights... without the suffragettes, that would have occurred sooner, as it did in 'the colonies'... and you can't tell me that in Australia - with a male/female ration at Universal Suffrage time of 70/30 - men were pussy-whipped into giving women the vote when asked to vote on the issue... the reality is that good men and true always supported and promoted the cause of 'women's rights' and equality - now these same ungrateful and selfish 'women' have made of those same men, such as myself who never held them back in any way, the 'enemy'... and of the likes of Shorten their 'friend' because he sucks up to them.......

We men simply refuse to be created an 'enemy' by being here and working for our living etc, as we have done all our lives... sorry 'bout that... we get to live, too, girlies... love it or leave it...


Men's anthem again.. many a true word here for men:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28iHn3sN10s

While we're on the subject - what 'rights' do you imagine a man in 1890 with little property, and in a time of unreliable work, had?  the right to travel and leave home and family in search of a short term job breaking his back shearing or digging fence post hole with a shovel?

Unless they had a certain level of property they could not vote, cods... so what were all these mysterious 'rights' that men had pre-Federation and women didn't? 

The 'right' to be 'moved on from a town as a layabout and  from outside without a job?  The right to hump a swag on the tracks and rough roads looking for work in the hot sun and cold winter?  The right to be considered daily as a serf and a second class citizen with no vote or real rights?  The right to work on piece rates and be paid less and less as you aged and could not work as hard, and then die often twenty years before your wife?

And forget about Britain and its stupid suffragettes - this is (or was) Australia!!  Get your history right....

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Nov 11^th, 2019 at 11:43pm:

While we're on the subject - what 'rights' do you imagine a man in 1890 with little property, and in a time of unreliable work, had?  the right to travel and leave home and family in search of a short term job breaking his back shearing or digging fence post hole with a shovel? Unless they had a certain level of property they could not vote, cods... so what were all these mysterious 'rights' that men had pre-Federation and women didn't?  The 'right' to be 'moved on from a town as a layabout and  from outside without a job?  The right to hump a swag on the tracks and rough roads looking for work in the hot sun and cold winter?  The right to be considered daily as a serf and a second class citizen with no vote or real rights?  The right to work on piece rates and be paid less and less as you aged and could not work as hard, and then die often twenty years before your wife? And forget about Britain and its stupid suffragettes - this is (or was) Australia!!  Get your history right....

I have no idea what you are talking about.....men not being allowed to vote here in OZ  is a new one on me...

but ok I will let you stew in your poor men syndrome  you even appear to research how hard done you all were...shame Australia shame. :(

cods wrote on Nov 12^th, 2019 at 5:00am:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Nov 11th, 2019 at 11:43pm: While we're on the subject - what 'rights' do you imagine a man in 1890 with little property, and in a time of unreliable work, had?  the right to travel and leave home and family in search of a short term job breaking his back shearing or digging fence post hole with a shovel? Unless they had a certain level of property they could not vote, cods... so what were all these mysterious 'rights' that men had pre-Federation and women didn't?  The 'right' to be 'moved on from a town as a layabout and  from outside without a job?  The right to hump a swag on the tracks and rough roads looking for work in the hot sun and cold winter?  The right to be considered daily as a serf and a second class citizen with no vote or real rights?  The right to work on piece rates and be paid less and less as you aged and could not work as hard, and then die often twenty years before your wife? And forget about Britain and its stupid suffragettes - this is (or was) Australia!!  Get your history right.... I have no idea what you are talking about.....men not being allowed to vote here in OZ  is a new one on me... but ok I will let you stew in your poor men syndrome  you even appear to research how hard done you all were...shame Australia shame. :(

Obviously Cods everything Graps has tried to explain to you has gone straight through to the keeper.

He wasn't trying to make a case for how hard done by men were ...... he was trying to point out that woman didn't have it as bad as you claim or any worse than men of the time.

Gnads wrote on Nov 12^th, 2019 at 6:45am:

cods wrote on Nov 12th, 2019 at 5:00am: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Nov 11th, 2019 at 11:43pm: While we're on the subject - what 'rights' do you imagine a man in 1890 with little property, and in a time of unreliable work, had?  the right to travel and leave home and family in search of a short term job breaking his back shearing or digging fence post hole with a shovel? Unless they had a certain level of property they could not vote, cods... so what were all these mysterious 'rights' that men had pre-Federation and women didn't?  The 'right' to be 'moved on from a town as a layabout and  from outside without a job?  The right to hump a swag on the tracks and rough roads looking for work in the hot sun and cold winter?  The right to be considered daily as a serf and a second class citizen with no vote or real rights?  The right to work on piece rates and be paid less and less as you aged and could not work as hard, and then die often twenty years before your wife? And forget about Britain and its stupid suffragettes - this is (or was) Australia!!  Get your history right.... I have no idea what you are talking about.....men not being allowed to vote here in OZ  is a new one on me... but ok I will let you stew in your poor men syndrome  you even appear to research how hard done you all were...shame Australia shame. :( Obviously Cods everything Graps has tried to explain to you has gone straight through to the keeper. He wasn't trying to make a case for how hard done by men were ...... he was trying to point out that woman didn't have it as bad as you claim or any worse than men of the time.

As for British Men and women:-

"Stephen Tempest
Stephen Tempest, MA Modern History, University of Oxford (1985)
Answered Sep 29, 2015 · Upvoted by Federico Bruzone, BA History, MA Classics Candidate (U. of Buenos Aires) · Author has 2.9k answers and 23.3m answer views
Working class householders in the cities received the vote in 1867. Those in the countryside did so in 1884. Finally, non-householders — people living with their parents, or in the homes of their employers (such as servants), or in barracks (soldiers, etc), or who were homeless — got the vote in 1918."

It wasn't just women who were left out...  ::)  ::)  ::)  Women got it in 1918 - not 1920.  Men voted it in for them..... funny that.

Now Australia:-

"Upon first white settlement in New South Wales in 1788, the appointed Governors had autocratic powers within the colony, but agitation for representative government began soon after the settlement.[1] A legislative body, the New South Wales Legislative Council, was created in 1825, which was an appointed body whose function was to advise the Governor. On 24 August 1824, 5 members were appointed to the Council, which increased to 7 members in 1825, and between 10 and 15 in 1829. Also in 1829, British sovereignty was extended to cover the whole of Australia, and everyone born in Australia, including Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, became British subjects by birth.

The first parliamentary elections in Australia took place in 1843 for the New South Wales Legislative Council under the New South Wales Constitution Act 1842 (UK).[2] The Council had 36 members, of which 12 were appointed by the Governor and the remainder were elected. The right to vote was limited to men with a freehold valued at £200 or a householder paying rent of £20 per year, both very large sums at the time.

In the 1850s, limited self-government was granted to South Australia (1856), Victoria (1857), New South Wales (1858) and Tasmania (1896): all adult (21 years) male British subjects became entitled to vote. This included indigenous people but they were not encouraged to enroll. Queensland gained self-government in 1859 and Western Australia in 1890, but these colonies denied indigenous people the vote. An innovative secret ballot was introduced in Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia.[3]

In 1856, under a new Constitution, the New South Wales Parliament became bicameral with a fully elected Legislative Assembly and a fully appointed Legislative Council with a Government taking over most of the legislative powers of the Governor. On 22 May 1856, the newly constituted New South Wales Parliament opened and sat for the first time. The right to vote for Legislative Assembly was extended to all adult males in 1858.[4]

In 1901, the six Australian colonies united to form the federal Commonwealth of Australia. The first election for the Commonwealth Parliament in 1901 was based on the electoral laws at that time of the six colonies, so that those who had the right to vote and to stand for Parliament at state level had the same rights for the 1901 Australian federal election. Only in South Australia (since 1895) and Western Australia (since 1899) did women have a vote. Tasmania retained a small property qualification for voting, but in the other states all male British subjects over 21 could vote. Only in South Australia (which included the Northern Territory) and Tasmania were indigenous Australians even theoretically entitled to vote. A few may have done so in South Australia. Western Australia and Queensland specifically barred indigenous people from voting.

In 1902, the Commonwealth Parliament passed the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902, which established a uniform franchise law for the federal Parliament. The Act declared that all British subjects over the age of 21 years who had been living in Australia for at least 6 months were entitled to a vote, whether male or female, and whether married or single."

That's Wikipedia....

.. and here's another link:-

https://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/25/theme1-voting-history.htm

and another:-

https://www.civicsandcitizenship.edu.au/cce/electoral_events_timeline_ls,9491.html

.. and don't forget - prior to federation you'll have to argue each state individually..  ::)

Nah, then - what about that Q & A episode last night..... oh... silly me ... I thought that, in the interests of balance, they'd have an all men panel of Mens Rights Activists etc, who would be 'mansplaining' the realities of the feminist tripe put forward last week and offering alternative interpretations etc... ... silly me.. can't have balance..... not in the media..

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Nov 12^th, 2019 at 8:06am:

Nah, then - what about that Q & A episode last night..... oh... silly me ... I thought that, in the interests of balance, they'd have an all men panel of Mens Rights Activists etc, who would be 'mansplaining' the realities of the feminist tripe put forward last week and offering alternative interpretations etc... ... silly me.. can't have balance..... not in the media..

;D Yeah 'bout right to.

Feminists and lesbians are not the same.
:)

capitosinora wrote on Nov 12^th, 2019 at 9:46am:

Feminists and lesbians are not the same. :)

Nah - but equally as free and easy with their commitments ....

The question is would women do the same for men.....?

https://i.ibb.co/bQwkSzL/soccerroos-JPG.jpg

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/socceroos-matildas-on-course-for-equal-pay-as-part-of-new-cba-deal-20191105-p537ge.html

The suffragettes dod a dirty deal with the grubberment of the time to secure they "freedom"

They handed out white feathers to men who they thought should be throwing their lives at war and were not.

I noticed that none of these campaigning women volunteered to go and fight in war, but were quite willing to hound men off to war to die.

Suffragettes were dispicable and were as bad an example of true womanhood as these rampant feminists we have today.

Lesbians, LGBTIQselfish morons who simply want, want, want with no concept of what they want.

Women managers and even worse women police think they have to be super tough to succeed.

But when they try they just look foolish.

I remember a female cop trying to take down a sizable bikie at a roadside stop, when he laughed at her.
She tried decking him with at least three punches before he shouted to one of the bloke cops and asked him to get his pet off him.

It was hilarious, but he was charged with assaulting a police officer.
He didn't even touch her, but she hurt her hand hitting him.

Women.
They have a place, but its not in men's professions.

Ajax wrote on Nov 12^th, 2019 at 5:05pm:

The question is would women do the same for men.....? https://i.ibb.co/bQwkSzL/soccerroos-JPG.jpg https://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/socceroos-matildas-on-course-for-equal-pay-as-part-of-new-cba-deal-20191105-p537ge.html

Equality by numbers, innit?  Numbers do not make equality - genuine equal opportunity does...

Everyone has the right to stand for elected office - it's nobody's fault that in the past women succeeded less than men, or that there are few Aboriginals etc in elected office - they still have the right to stand, and affirmative action is verboten in elected office position.

Let The People Decide - and not by being forced to play with a stacked deck as Labor has been doing for decades now..... and they wonder why they don't get elected time after time.. people are not stupid and know when they're being handed a deck with marked cards....

capitosinora wrote on Nov 12^th, 2019 at 9:46am:

Feminists and lesbians are not the same. :)

Oh?? What's the difference?

https://spectatorau.imgix.net/content/uploads/2019/11/Snip20191110_1.png

Frank wrote on Nov 12^th, 2019 at 5:51pm:

capitosinora wrote on Nov 12th, 2019 at 9:46am: Feminists and lesbians are not the same. :) Oh?? What's the difference?

Not a lot. Both dislike men.  ;D

AaronCRescue wrote on Nov 12^th, 2019 at 5:56pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 12th, 2019 at 5:51pm: capitosinora wrote on Nov 12th, 2019 at 9:46am: Feminists and lesbians are not the same. :) Oh?? What's the difference? Not a lot. Both dislike men.  ;D

;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

Frank wrote on Nov 12^th, 2019 at 5:51pm:

capitosinora wrote on Nov 12th, 2019 at 9:46am: Feminists and lesbians are not the same. :) Oh?? What's the difference? https://spectatorau.imgix.net/content/uploads/2019/11/Snip20191110_1.png

The one on the right was on Q&A on Monday night last week .......

The ABC should be ashamed it gave her any air time to voice her poisonous hate filled opinions.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Nov 12^th, 2019 at 6:26pm:

AaronCRescue wrote on Nov 12th, 2019 at 5:56pm: Frank wrote on Nov 12th, 2019 at 5:51pm: capitosinora wrote on Nov 12th, 2019 at 9:46am: Feminists and lesbians are not the same. :) Oh?? What's the difference? Not a lot. Both dislike men.  ;D ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

Exactly

Gnads wrote on Nov 13^th, 2019 at 8:25am:

Frank wrote on Nov 12th, 2019 at 5:51pm: capitosinora wrote on Nov 12th, 2019 at 9:46am: Feminists and lesbians are not the same. :) Oh?? What's the difference? https://spectatorau.imgix.net/content/uploads/2019/11/Snip20191110_1.png The one on the right was on Q&A on Monday night last week .......

Is that hair natural??   The other one has ironmongery in her face - is THAT natural??

A female loses their "bloom" at about 20. So I have been told.

A male at that age is still "immature" and lucky if he has hair on his chest to shave off.

By around 30-35 your face starts to "drop" if you are a female, males are still deciding what they will "do" in the future and running around the block to get hot and sweaty.  Their balls now "drop".

Age 40ish, the "worry lines" begin to show (both genders) and if you happen to use any type of "expression" when talking,  wrinkles start to show on your forehead and elsewhere. This is normal.

Stay in shape and the next 5-10 years will be some of the better years ... unless you married and had kids who are probably now "teenagers" when the "expression" on your face becomes even more lined.

Then "poo" starts to happen.

Your parents are in their 80s and not as well as they hope they would be.

Your kids begin to be a pain, the wife/husband is fed up.

Your position at work is not as secure as you though it was.

poo happens.

The wife/husband tells you they are LEAVING and want to sell the house. The kids are still hanging around because even though they got Year12 and qualified for Uni, they really don't know what they want to do.

It WILL get better.

Turn 65 and get the Age Pension.   ;)

NIRVANA!  ;D ;D ;D

Frank wrote on Nov 13^th, 2019 at 5:55pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 13th, 2019 at 8:25am: Frank wrote on Nov 12th, 2019 at 5:51pm: capitosinora wrote on Nov 12th, 2019 at 9:46am: Feminists and lesbians are not the same. :) Oh?? What's the difference? https://spectatorau.imgix.net/content/uploads/2019/11/Snip20191110_1.png The one on the right was on Q&A on Monday night last week ....... Is that hair natural??   The other one has ironmongery in her face - is THAT natural??

MAN-made.........   ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

ChrisP wrote on Nov 13^th, 2019 at 6:30pm:

A female loses their "bloom" at about 20. So I have been told. A male at that age is still "immature" and lucky if he has hair on his chest to shave off. By around 30-35 your face starts to "drop" if you are a female, males are still deciding what they will "do" in the future and running around the block to get hot and sweaty.  Their balls now "drop". Age 40ish, the "worry lines" begin to show (both genders) and if you happen to use any type of "expression" when talking,  wrinkles start to show on your forehead and elsewhere. This is normal. Stay in shape and the next 5-10 years will be some of the better years ... unless you married and had kids who are probably now "teenagers" when the "expression" on your face becomes even more lined. Then "poo" starts to happen. Your parents are in their 80s and not as well as they hope they would be. Your kids begin to be a pain, the wife/husband is fed up. Your position at work is not as secure as you though it was. poo happens. The wife/husband tells you they are LEAVING and want to sell the house. The kids are still hanging around because even though they got Year12 and qualified for Uni, they really don't know what they want to do. It WILL get better. Turn 65 and get the Age Pension.   ;) NIRVANA!  ;D ;D ;D

;)  :P
The seven ages of man for our time.

Not sure about the pension being nirvana unless it signifies the age where thrashing around about the earlier concerns ends (rather than financial nirvana)

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Nov 13^th, 2019 at 6:40pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 13th, 2019 at 5:55pm: Gnads wrote on Nov 13th, 2019 at 8:25am: Frank wrote on Nov 12th, 2019 at 5:51pm: capitosinora wrote on Nov 12th, 2019 at 9:46am: Feminists and lesbians are not the same. :) Oh?? What's the difference? https://spectatorau.imgix.net/content/uploads/2019/11/Snip20191110_1.png The one on the right was on Q&A on Monday night last week ....... Is that hair natural??   The other one has ironmongery in her face - is THAT natural?? MAN-made.........   ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

HATER!!!!!