General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWould the men of the US be willing to fight and die for the rights of women and girls of the US?
I'm not sure if the answer to that question is a resounding yes.
joetheman
(1,450 posts)North Shore Chicago
(3,333 posts)marble falls
(57,333 posts)Raven
(13,902 posts)marble falls
(57,333 posts)... for more. Would RW women fight for LW men's rights? Your question begs some nuance.
Were the mostly male armed forces that were in Afghanistan fighting for Afghan women's rights?
The correct question we need to ask ourselves is: would I fight for anyone else's rights?
Bettie
(16,130 posts)but the others?
The right wingers?
Never.
They would fight tooth and nail to make our country more like fictional Gilead though.
Donkees
(31,474 posts)Excerpt:
American men as individuals had publicly supported the rights of women as far back as 1775, when Thomas Paine published his essay An Occasional Letter on the Female Sex. After the Seneca Falls Convention to support womens rights in 1848, other men wrote more specifically in support of womens enfranchisement, notably William Lloyd Garrison, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Frederick Douglass. In England, John Stuart Mills The Subjection of Women, published in 1869, echoed many of the arguments that his wife, Harriet Taylor Mill, had presented in The Enfranchisement of Women, 18 years earlier. And briefly, between 1874 and 1875, a Young Mens Woman Suffrage League met in New York City, fielding pro-suffrage speakers from its membership physicians, attorneys, and professors among them at some 80 meetings in the Plimpton Building, at 30 Stuyvesant Street in what is now the East Village.
In time, male suffragists would become commonplace and then all but forgotten as an orchestrated movement force. This is not so surprising. The story of the triumph of the suffrage cause has long belonged to the women, and rightly so. In the century since New York State granted women the vote, in November 1917, strikingly few details about the mens efforts have thus emerged.
... The mens important contributions were especially apparent during the New York legislative and voter victories of 1917. Who else but the prominent men among the movements declared backers had such ready personal access to the also male state and federal legislators and government leaders, to publishers, or to the editorial elite? It worked to the movements extreme advantage that so many League members and leaders were themselves publishers and the editorial elite. Twice, Eastman sparred publicly with Theodore Roosevelt. At various points, Peabody, Villard, Wise, Creel, Harvey, Hapgood, Malone, and Eastman all had Woodrow Wilsons ear. Most of them were among Wilsons earliest political backers; Eastman had his respect. Creel, in the critical period when Wilson at long last came out in favor of the federal suffrage amendment, was on terms of intimacy with the president, meeting with him almost daily in his capacity as chair of the Committee on Public Information after the United States entered World War I in 1917.
No doubt an accumulation of other factors, far greater than the Mens Leagues, led to the ultimate success of the womens suffrage campaign: seven long decades of effort by passionate women, the changing times and political winds, the burgeoning public support, the growing number of states where women with the vote could influence outcomes, the movingly sacrificial role women played after the United States entered World War I. Still, once the details are known, it is hard to ignore the boost that the men provided. Their involvement amounted to more than an influential factor or invaluable help. Their commitment showcases the value elite individuals who act with care can bring to marginalized movements, particularly those with social justice aims. The impact of Mens League actions a century ago speaks loudly to the strategic importance of cultivating people with influence and magnetic media appeal, those who can attract positive public attention, open access to those in positions of power, and alter public perception.
https://timeline.com/the-men-who-supported-suffragettes-c8d1b921d71f
mopinko
(70,261 posts)UnderThisLaw
(318 posts)on whether the man in question is genuinely concerned with the rights of women or whether he views this concept as something to be weaponized in furtherance of fascism
NoMoreRepugs
(9,475 posts)I truly appreciate the incredible young people making a difference today but on balance these last few generations cant stand in the shadow of those before them.
Klaralven
(7,510 posts)I'm not sure if the answer to that question is a resounding yes.
haele
(12,682 posts)There are quite a few women who love/accept their position in life and don't care very much about anything other than their own position and comfort level. Some of them use their sexual contract with men to support the male power in exchange for their power.
One cannot depend on women in general to support other women. "I got mine" is not an attitude unique to men.
Haele
Mosby
(16,377 posts)Throck
(2,520 posts)I'd actually fight for freedom first. Freedom gives the opportunity to pursue rights.
pwb
(11,292 posts)You want 20 more? Turn off the cable noise and you will feel better. I did. One hour of real news at night from the Networks and D U freed me from all the opinions and questions disguised as real news. I favor leaving having tried our best.
ananda
(28,879 posts)We are still a very sexist nation.
Walleye
(31,068 posts)bluedevil4
(305 posts)Especially if there's a sister, daughter, mother, significant other etc.
CousinIT
(9,261 posts)The Taliban consider women sub-human & treat them as slaves. The American Taliban (Republicans) have the same attitude about girls and women - even while they shriek about "Sharia Law" elsewhere - they demand their own version of it in America: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/reproductive-rights-and-long-hand-slave-breeding/
And sadly, too many Democratic men have similar attitudes about girls and women and their 'lot in life'. I don't think it's important enough for most of them to die for. I'm not sure it's important enough for even most girls and women in America to fight and die for. Too many of them take bodily autonomy, reproductive choice, and even voting rights for granted.
MineralMan
(146,336 posts)Men are not uniform.
ShazamIam
(2,576 posts)would be a, "resounding yes."
Scrivener7
(51,025 posts)Given the possibility of a guaranteed success in returning to subjugating women, it is certain many of our allies would defect.
And given the probability of the loss of their OWN rights rather than some other woman's, some anti-feminists would join us.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,449 posts)Semper Fi.
Walleye
(31,068 posts)SWMO_8541
(34 posts)sanatanadharma
(3,739 posts)Why are not the men and women of the country, village, farm, town, hillside and city willing to die for the right to say, "Fuck you" to the armed bullies?
Imagine yourself, in your place on this world, being bullied by gangs of armed 3% IQ PB's with AK's
I pray no more need anyone face the deadly reality of the consequences and results of the actions, of those whose subjective mindsets are said to be aligned with Divine desires.
The same sickness of the human condition that is manifest in Afghanistan in the Taliban, exists also in the USA in the messed up minds of our families and neighbors.
Walleye
(31,068 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Right wing women exist - that's the hardest part about progress for women. You don't see any other group fighting for equality with its own members who don't support it.
snort
(2,334 posts)Chainfire
(17,656 posts)Response to Raven (Original post)
tenderfoot This message was self-deleted by its author.
Devil Child
(2,728 posts)Iggo
(47,574 posts)Because youre talking about civil war. So of course the answer would not be a resounding yes.