Fucking wankers talking about Women's Achievements in 100 years

Did anyone else find themselves irritated that despite the fact that yesterday was the 100 year anniversary of the first time any women was given the right to vote in the UK, a monumentous acheivement in itself, there seemed to be an onus on everyone to put a caveat in with their tweets/ posts etc, that it wasn't all women that got the vote.
We know this. I don't think my great grandma would have got the vote in 1918. I myself, am not exactly well off but I can see this as the major stepping stone it is.
I also appreciate there's more to be done and many women are still suffering but celebrating acheivements of the past does not mean we no longer want to help anyone else.
Anyway, I realise that I'm probably preaching to the choir but thanks for letting me moan. Very cathartic.

Sorry I don't have any time really for Shane/Courtney. They mansplained feminism and womanhood throughout CBB without a moments thought that there were actual women in the house that were a lot more qualified to do so.

And whilst Shane does still technically admit to being a man I feel it's only a matter of time. Whilst in CBB he claimed he was a 3/4 on the spectrum of womanhood (whatever the fuck that means).

I've vaguely been aware of him since the Drag Race days and he's already gone from standard gay man to identifying as pansexual, non binary whatever. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he goes full trans ideology in the next few years particularly given his self confessed penchant for turning 'straight' men.

The best I can say about him is that he was better than India (not difficult)

Owen Jones: ‘’Listen you women. I am on the right side of history!’’

India Willoughby: ‘’Listen you women. I am a reeeeeal woman!’’

Andi Dier: ‘’Listen you women. But I got followed!’’

Mike Peterson: ‘’Listen you women. My mate with a dick is more woman than you!'’

Women’s March: ‘’Listen women. Be kind to the paedophile who abuses the rape survivor!’’

Suffragettes: ‘’Anyone got a brick?’’

I'm actually a bit enraged that we are celebrating now. It's almost like poor women don't matter.
I feel like this too - I agree with all said above about this bring the fault of make politicians, but I still think it's not really celebrating when it was only 40% of women. I opened they celebrate again in 2028 for the actual 100 years. It's been annoying me how many people on social media are reposting the hashtag without giving proper details too.

Listening to Jeremy Vine earlier (I know, sorry), a section about 100 years of the vote and the suffragettes, and they had a woman, yes a bloody woman, on saying ‘yeah well, they weren’t all that, you’ve got to remember that it wasn’t just women who didn’t have the vote, some men didnt either....’
Literally cannot mention anything about women, in any way whatsoever, without someone saying ‘But what about the menz’.

Well I did go and check, but there were 56 other replies so it would be at the end of a massive list. And... well I don’t think he’s worth it.

I almost feel like responding to ask whether male news reporters might have been incorrectly telling them how they were going to be on the wrong side of history.

Why wouldn't you?

hackmum wrote - "Does anyone else get intensely irritated by the men who keep saying "Ah, but it was only rich women who got the vote"?"

The idea that the Suffragettes somehow failed women back in 1918 by only securing the vote for a minority of women is an attempt at whitewashing the extremely uncooperative behaviour of the male political establishment of the time.

What did happen in 1918 was that women's suffrage campaigners won the vote for all of the women whom men would allow to vote. The fact that this corresponded to only some women is the fault of the male politicians of 1918, because those men would not allow votes for all women.

I'm agog at Owen Jones not realising the irony of what he's posting.

Me too. I almost feel like responding to ask whether male news reporters might have been incorrectly telling them how they were going to be on the wrong side of history.

I would have seen that enormously male privileged comment by Owen Jones on Twitter but I'm on the Terf Blocker List.

I dont know, the Paris tweet says all women ..... trans .... so that means women who are trans so Trans Identified females.
Right? Must be....

I'm agog at Owen Jones not realising the irony of what he's posting.

Of course our mate Paris has also appropriated this for their own agenda. A few misogynist comments underneath as well.

I don't know if its just me, but this tweet has a distinct undertone of 'the suffragettes didn't do a very good job'. Which just confirms for me that that Vogue cover was absolutely fuck all to do with celebrating the Suffragettes and everything to do with proving how much of a 'woman' Paris is.

It is maddening to think that 100 years ago women were denied the right to vote based on their biology. 100 years later their biology is simply denied by every party -barring UKIP.

I haven't heard any mention of 'well, not all women were denied the vote before 1918. Some trans women had it and this celebration excludes them!'

FFS don't give them ideas. That will be the next thing. Women already had the vote..never had to fight for it, same as they have always had equal rights, stop making a fuss silly people!

Euch, sorry, that post was very inarticulate.

It's funny actually that men like Shon Faye tend to be the ones that try to censor women about their biology because 'not all women menstruate/have vaginas/have xx chromosomes' and yet, on the issue of the suffragettes, I haven't heard any mention of 'well, not all women were denied the vote before 1918. Some trans women had it and this celebration excludes them!'
I don't know if that's because to admit that would be to admit that biology is the basis of oppression, or because celebration of the suffragettes doesn't exclude them, per se. It was 100 yrs earlier and while I imagine most of us feel solidarity with those women, I wonder if there is more of an individual element to the TRAs. It's less of a class thing.

Does anyone else get intensely irritated by the men who keep saying "Ah, but it was only rich women who got the vote"? It's true, of course, but it's the way they try and diminish the achievement - as if it's completely meaningless, because no-one cares about rich women, do they? It was an important staging post to all women getting the vote. That's the point.

Yes exactly. Given that not all men had the vote at that point, it was unlikely that the suffragettes would achieve votes for all women. Or votes for everyone, which I guess is what people expect they should have been campaigning for.

It's a bit like now when people say to women 'why aren't you campaigning for men's shelters as well as womens', or why aren't you centering transwomen in your feminism?

It's just another way of silencing women and their achievements.

The absolute gall of Owen Jones commenting on this when he's leading the charge of the trans movement destroying women's rights!

hackman I'm actually a bit enraged that we are celebrating now. It's almost like poor women don't matter.

I find Owen Jones' comment below Shon's especially ironic.

Me too. No self-awareness, that one.

I find Owen Jones' comment below Shon's especially ironic.

Me too! The suffragettes were despised and detested. Including by vast hordes of women. The parallels with today are blindingly obvious and entirely different to the ones that idiot OJ thinks they are.

Does anyone else get intensely irritated by the men who keep saying "Ah, but it was only rich women who got the vote"? It's true, of course, but it's the way they try and diminish the achievement - as if it's completely meaningless, because no-one cares about rich women, do they? It was an important staging post to all women getting the vote. That's the point.

I find Owen Jones' comment below Shon's especially ironic.