"no rights to women" posters

[ullainga]

was just reading an article about "anti-feminist meeting" in Switzerland here and stumbled on this historical poster gallery about why women should not get the right to vote here. Apparently they would neglect their child-rearing duties then. quite fascinating.

Do you know any similar pages? Would be interesting to remind ourselves how things were not so long ago..

Christ re the anti feminist meeting.

No, I don't know of any.

those voting posters are really interesting - thanks for the link!

interesting thanks

Thanks for this - those "anti-suffrage" posters are so crap. The idea that women shouldn't vote because they might be momentarily distracted from their infant children. Well - what about the rest of their adult lives when they don't have babies to care for?

Blimey.

and by "crap" I mean - badly thought out rather than just "i disagree".

So those Swiss women shouldn't be allowed to vote because it will take them away from their child-caring "duties"? How long does it take to vote there? Last time I voted, it took me less than five minutes.

As the men vote, isn't that effectively saying they feel entitled to neglect their child-caring duties?

The definitions of "anti-feminist" that one of those Swiss men gave are pathetic but disturbing. The article quotes him:

"?A lot of people have the wrong impression about what an antifeminist really is,? ... ?They believe that an antifeminist is a woman-hater. Not at all. An antifeminist is a kind of peacekeeper who wants to return things to normal. As an antifeminist I believe in true equality between a man and a woman.?"

Why does his "true equality" not include voting rights or shared child-care?

The men going to the anti-feminist meetings are being charged 55 dollars each to listen to such gems of wisdom. What a shame that it's 55 dollars their children will never see.

well, I don't think the men attending this conference actually support taking away voting rights, I just saw the link when i was reading the article. And I think the guy you quoted was actually Swedish.

But the funny thing is, even though I don't have the statistics, I bet that in more feminist countries like Sweden the fathers have significantly better chances to be involved in their childrens' lives than in countries like Switzerland, where father's role is to bring home the bacon and that's it. Of course the children will remain with mum in case of divorce asn the father would have no idea what to do with them anyway. As far as I know, joint custody is still very recent and rare in Switzerland (the mother used to get sole custody by default, unless she had some serious issues), even though totally normal and common in Scandinavia.

I would like to know though what "back to normal" according to him means.

ullainga wrote "I think the guy you quoted was actually Swedish."

Agreed, but I think his nationality is the least of our problems.

I am also intrigued by what things getting "back to normal" would entail...

Perhaps "back to normal" means returning to the time when men and women lived in "true equality"?

ah, remember that?

Me neither.

He means back to normal in the same way that most of the men in Pleasantville wanted things to go "back to normal". Dinner on the table, kids looked after by a woman, no arguments because he is right because of the cock, and no divorce so he has no obligation to be a decent person because she is trapped.

That kind of normal, another day in the rampant patriarchy normal.

vesuvia, I just find it quite ironic that a Swedish dad would go to Switzerland to fight for his rights to raise his kids (for the reasons mentioned in my previous post)

ullainga - wrote "vesuvia, I just find it quite ironic that a Swedish dad would go to Switzerland to fight for his rights to raise his kids (for the reasons mentioned in my previous post)"

Indeed it is ironic. I take your point absolutely. I was thinking more along the lines of anti-feminism knowing no borders.

I stumbled across this delightful website the other day. I couldn't bring myself to read more than a couple of sentences.

Men are better than women

Thanks for the link jess. It's all a bit sad really isn't it

LOL Jess that site. My favourite is the No.1 reason why men are better than women;

1. Men have penises

When it comes to being a man, being quick at identifying problems is tantamount to fixing them. In fact it?s tantamount-ier. Having a penis ? in other words looking like a man and having man parts ? is a man?s way of telling other men, ?Hey. Look at me. I?m a man. I won?t fuck up whatever it is that you?re trying to do. If you need some help, maybe ask me and I?ll see if I can lend a man-hand. It?s the least I could do to be fucking courteous.?

I've not laughed so hard in a long time.

Was this website the inspiration for james may's new series I wonder?

Is that site a joke?

I assumed it was, but then I kept reading and they take the joke quite far...

Yuno

That site is definitely a joke. Whether the people making it or reading it are in on that joke is another matter

"Women ruined gayness"
"The Challenger explosion probably happened because there was a woman aboard"

I love to see such well-reasoned lines of argument!

Btw I took my baby with me when I voted, thus ensuring that exercising my democratic prerogative didn't interfere with (clearly) my fundamental child-rearing duties. Does that make me less threatening to the world order?

Thanks so much for the link to those posters. Completely shocking and eye-opening. Especially the dummy with the vicious insect on it. How insidiously dangerous we are to our children when we have political equality! I never knew!

By the way, do you know when the last women got the right to vote in Switzerland on cantonal (local government) level? In 19..wait for it...91.

the canton Appenzell Innerrhoden claimed that the Cantonal Constitution would need to be changed, as they interpreted the word "citizen" as only including men. even though the federal constitution had already been changed to specify that it includes both men and women. So as Appenzell did not want to do anything, some women actually sued the local government and got the right to vote only after the Supreme Court decided that yes, women are citizens too. in 1990s. Amazing.

ullainga, that disgraceful situation about Appenzell canton that you've described strikes me as a good example of how women have had to fight for the vote, instead of having it granted by benevolent men in power, acting out of the kindness of their hearts.

It seems that the Appenzell male-dominated establishment only granted voting rights to women very begrudgingly through gritted teeth when a higher authority forced them.
What a dilemma those men faced:
"Do we tell a few (probably male) constitutional specialists to waste their extremely valuable time asking them to change a few words on a piece of paper?"
or
"Do we give voting rights to the other half of the adults in the canton?"

I don't think the Supreme Court covered themselves in glory either, because they appear only to have started caring after the women took action.

Gosh, I never knew Switzerland was still arguing the right to vote for women in 1971!! Eye opening.

In preparation for teaching (uni) I stumbled across a Hansard (Australian parliament) debate about why women should/should not get the vote. It was so interesting (and from 1902).

Arguments Against
Sir Josiah Symon (South Australia)
"My own belief is that woman is at her noblest and best as a wife and mother. I think that the great majority, I will not say of the best women, but of women generally, are content to guide the house, the child to teach, to be an example to their children and the joy of their husband's home. I feel that the introduction of political debate - I put it that way - into the ambit of their service is overloading them, and is certainly not promoting women's destiny at its best. She has an ample mission and an ample field outside and above all politics ... politics means a service to the State. I think women might be quite good as servants to the State, and quite as effective in their by brightening up their homes, by making them happy and attractive for their husbands, and by brining up their children as well ordered and useful citizens of the Commonwealth."

and ...

Senator John Downer (South Australia)
"The conclusion I have come to is that, except in the case of a woman who has some means and property of her own which gives her an individuality, women vote just as their husbands, fathers, brothers or sweethearts vote; and if a woman does not happen to have any of these relations, she votes just as the other man, whoever he may be, who has the greatest control over her, votes."

but then, a shining light ...

Senator Stewart (Queensland)
"The very men who say that giving a woman the vote would degrade her, have not the slightest compunction about making her a drudge. They do not regard it as degrading to black a man's boots. Oh no! It is not degrading for her to scrub a floor or to be turned into a stuffy kitchen to cook for a man, or to be put into a factory where she will have to work nine or ten hours a day for wretched pittance. None of these things will degrade a woman, but to give her a voice in the government of this country will degrade her! ... I pity the man who thinks that women are stupid. He cannot have much to do with them."

I wish Senator Stewart was my great-great grandfather!!

Well said Senator Stewart!