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


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.

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



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.....

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....

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


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.

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.ht...

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

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


Yeah 'bout right to.

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


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

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.