Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: The 'White Feather Girls': women's militarism in the UK

  1. #1
    Senior Member mr_e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    7,491
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    70

    The 'White Feather Girls': women's militarism in the UK

    The 'White Feather Girls': women's militarism in the UK
    https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/n...litarism-in-uk

    "The suffrage movement was split by the Great War. Most often remembered are the pacifists. But the militant history of feminist war supporters in Britain, and the audacity of the 'White Feather Girls' who shamed young men into enlisting, must also be remembered in this centenary year..."

    Mr. E: (Rolling Eyes) Here comes the Feminist revisionism.

    Whitewashing their White Feathers...
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.



    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

  2. #2
    i dont know who "THEY LIVE" is but he's a champ.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheNarrator View Post
    Everywhere I travel, tiny life. Single-serving sugar, single-serving cream, single pat of butter. The microwave Cordon Bleu hobby kit. Shampoo-conditioner combos, sample-packaged mouthwash, tiny bars of soap. The people I meet on each flight? They're single-serving friends.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Manalysis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    4,510
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    Here comes the Feminist revisionism. ... Whitewashing their White Feathers...
    Extraordinary.
    In Theology, there's been a debate about whether "X is good because God demands it", or "God demands X because it is good".
    Wrt. to feminism, it's obvious that "X is good because women do it".

    "Why would feminists split over the question of peace, a value that had once stood at the heart of the suffrage movement? First, the representation of the war itself was carefully designed to appeal to women.
    The brutal German invasion of Belgium in August 1914 was immediately characterized as a 'rape', and graphic images of sexual assault,
    and the torture of women and children began to pour out of the occupied territories, gaining primacy as Britain’s ostensible reason for entering the war.
    Like news of mass rape in Darfur, Taliban femicide, or the kidnapping of Nigerian School girls, the 'Rape of Belgium' brought forth evocative images of women in danger
    and electrified world opinion in favor of a war with complex causes that were difficult for feminists to oppose.

    As pacifism grew in power after the war, atrocity stories were increasingly cast into doubt.
    If accounts of German 'barbarism' had little basis in reality, the slaughter of millions of idealistic young men appeared catastrophic and senseless."

    Never mind the politics of World Domination, a rape scare will mobilize the women.
    And if there _had_ been a rape epidemic, that would make "the slaughter of millions of idealistic young men" no longer senseless.
    "Disposability"? What on earth do you mean?


    "The war also opened up a host of opportunities for women.
    The Pankhursts sponsored gigantic parades demanding female admittance to union jobs, while engaging in a theatrical strike-breaking campaign in the North, where they argued that women workers would never 'down tools'."

    So ... strike breaking is good ...


    "the Representation of the People Bill of 1918 not only re-enfranchised soldiers, but included female householders over thirty, under aged veterans, and military nurses, while disenfranchising conscientious objectors for seven years."

    This act was extending the franchise by 5.6 million men and 8.4 million women: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repres...eople_Act_1918
    Because: "40% of poor men could not vote. Technically this was not because of inadequate property, but because of stringent residency requirements that stipulated a man had to have a stable domicile to exercise the vote. In 1916, during the Great War, there was an outcry in Parliament and in the Press because many working class men lost their votes when they joined the army, since they no longer had a stable long-term domicile. Other workers lost their votes when they moved to munitions centers."


    "Surely, however, such arguments meant little to the bands of teenage girls hopping cheekily onto buses and trams to offer white feathers.
    ... many of them were slapped, pinched, knocked down or – most mortifyingly of all – confronted with a handless stump or footless leg, attached to a disabled veteran who had inadvertently been given a feather....
    Why then did they continue to give out white feathers, even after the adoption of conscription in 1916?
    For some, the act was clearly a gesture of liberation and a moment of excitement and fun."

    No comment.


    "As music hall stars sang 'We don’t want to lose you but we think you ought to go', and posters like 'Women of Britain, SAY GO!' shouted from hoardings,
    daring girls felt increasingly entitled to echo these themes to the flesh-and-blood men lingering in their midst. "

    As with media representation of men today.

    And at the end, a word of truth:

    "Women had more to gain from supporting the war than from opposing it. "


    The first comment is very good, though:

    "Driving ambulance's and working in factories is not bravery, that's what a real days work is, ladies. If you meant "women's bravery" and not woman's "bravery", then what the hell does that say?

    And you are wrong, a lot:
    1. Before the Representation of the People Bill of 1918 no more than about 40% of men could vote, not even including those under 21... so no, the women weren't taking on the jobs formerly done by enfranchised men, because the only men, sorry, PEOPLE that were enfranchised were those that had money.
    2. "many were risking their lives as doctors, nurses, and ambulance drivers at the front" ----- Yeah, maybe there was so "MANY" that they even got given their own giant wall with all the dead women's names on it!
    And 3. Sex was never a qualification for the vote, prior to the Representation of the People Bill of 1918 it was always about money. Women that had money back before then could and did vote, just not many because most would just prefer to pop out kids then do some real work, because or though back then house work was far harder than it is today, it was nothing compared to what men had to do. Women could vote
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wom...o-in-1918.html
    Women could work and own property
    http://www.history.org/Foundation/jo...ng04/women.cfm
    Christ, don't ya think it would be easy to find just one law on the books that forbid women from voting if there actually were?

    And really? You're blaming the war on a mind-set that we've had since the dawn of time, and still have to this very day?! It is always about women a children first, and that has not changed at all. All that's changed is that feminism has successfully since around about the 1960s/70s is turn the war from foreign men to just men, all men. "

    It contains two links to youtube, both protected, so there must be some unpleasant truth in them.

    But the next one gets to the coreof the issue: It's teh menz' fault:

    "I don't think this article apologizes for White Feather women, so much as it explains why young women in 1914 and 1915 were under tremendous social pressure to support the war in all sorts of way. The White Feather women have long been regarded with abhorance for sending young men to their deaths, yet the author shows that they were incited to do this by a pro-War Admiral and that they did it during a time when women and family members were encouraged to make men who didn't want to enlist ashamed of themselves. I think shifting the blame from the women, to the pro-war ideology that dominiated the homefront, far from "apologising" for the White Feather girls shows that a lot more poeple than women were responsible for what happened to those young men."

    Plus ça change ...

    M

  4. #4
    Margret thatcher the great pacifist lol
    train yourself to let go of everything you fear to lose Yoda

    to thine own self be true!

  5. #5
    Senior Member Anonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    2,443
    Blog Entries
    12
    Rep Power
    35
    Wait what? Pankhurst was pro WFB, what are this people talking about?

    I don´t know if you guys know this but this is a topic really close to my heart, it was finding out about WFC that finally pushed me over the edge into being red pilled, because it is basically male disposability taken to it´s logical extreme, this women seem to have been operating under the idea of "there will always be more men if we need them" so they had no problem sending all this men into their death for what amounts to cheap thrill, in fact i am convinced that the very knowledge that they could send this men to their death by shaming them this way must ave been what was feeding this power trip they were on, the performance itself is reprehensible as it gets, the woman would approach a man in public pretending to kiss him on the cheek only to back off at the last moment and pin the white feather on his shirt with the expression of utter disgust.
    Last edited by Anonymous; 05-19-2017 at 02:47 PM.
    I sexually identify as a sword pommel, check your privilege or i will have to end you RIGHTLY.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •