High-Tech Surveillance's First Target: Suffragettes 45
The BBC has an article, funny because the time that has passed but extremely serious at the time, about the efforts of the British government to keep an eye on women's suffrage advocates.
There you go. (Score:3, Funny)
One man's terrorist is another man's Women's Rights advocate. . . . Er.
Wham bam thank you ma'am! (Score:2)
I'm back on Suffragette City
Oh don't lean on me man
Cause you ain't got time to check it
You know my Suffragette City
Is outta sight...she's all right"
- David Bowie.
Apparently, not as out of sight as we might have thought.
Funny? Ohh... I get it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
How could that possibly be not funny?!?
Oh I get it... we're still meant to laugh at women and their attempts to get equal rights. Doh! I should of guessed earlier!!!
I'm sorry, but this is just as serious now, as it was back then... and a timely reminder that the government cannot be trusted to respect the privacy of the citizens that make their constituency. Think about it...
Re:Funny? Ohh... I get it.... (Score:2)
It's funny (as in odd or strange to ponder) that at the time this was a huge issue, yet now we take it for granted. It is strange for the current generation to ponder that there ever was a time where women's right to vote could have ever been questioned.
It is a subject worth examining. It wasn't that long ago, really. Looking at the parallels between surveillance then and surveillance now should make us question why we are still watching dissidents
Re:Funny? Ohh... I get it.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Funny? Ohh... I get it.... (Score:2)
Sorry, I had to do a doubletake on that one. What do you mean, exactly? A friend of mine constantly remarks (and she's not alone in this by far) that she can't understand why girl-on-girl is so accepted in the porn industry, but not guy-on-guy. It seems more socially acceptable, somehow, for girls to be lesbian/bisexual than for guys to
Re:Funny? Ohh... I get it.... (Score:2)
If only all life were as interesting as a porn film ;-)
Seriously though... There are actually two classes of "lesbian porn" that aimed at guys, and that aimed
today's terrorists are tomorrows heroes (Score:2)
I think people need to remember this. Both when considering someone for hero worship and when condemning today's terrorists. A bit of perspective can do a world of good, a bit of time tends to provide it, lets try to keep the number of deaths low and respect the balance between safety and fr
I see only one explanation (Score:1)
Could it be its your *special* time of the month?
I just couldn't resist. Bye Bye Karma.
Re:Funny? Ohh... I get it.... (Score:1)
Re:Funny? Ohh... I get it.... (Score:2)
T'is silly and stupid. in our eyes now, but it was deadly serious back then.
There are still fights for women's rights today, but it has now gone from a fight for the right to be considered "a person", to preventing wage discrimination. The fight's not over, but we've def
Funny? (Score:1)
This is something to really ponder. (Score:2)
This is why organizations like the ACLU that fight for the civil rights of anybody whose civil rights have been trampled are so important - who knows when the next Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King, or, heaven forfend,
Re:This is something to really ponder. (Score:5, Insightful)
Overt racial quotas to fight covert racism. A case can be made either way. If you don't like it, join the EFF or something. I said "organizations." I happen to think that the ACLU is a great example. If you don't, vote with your feet.
Here you get no sympathy from me. The ACLU fights to prevent government-sponsored religious speech, particularly when it favors a particular religion. If you are serious about your religion, you should be all in favor of this.
Chances are that 300 years ago, it was illegal in most parts of Europe for you to practice whatever religion you practice. It's still probably illegal to talk about it in many countries around the world, or if not, it'll get you on surveillance lists here in the states.
For example, I know of several countries, some of which you might even otherwise enjoy visiting, where merely discussing Christianity in a positive light with a citizen of that country can land you in jail for five years.
When municipalities here in the U.S. use government facilities to promote religion, they are stepping to the edge of the slippery slope that leads to just that sort of law. If you enjoy the freedom to practice your religion, you might want to think twice about getting upset about people who fight to prevent that.
Re:This is something to really ponder. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why organizations like the ACLU that fight for the civil rights of anybody whose civil rights have been trampled are so important - who knows when the next Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King, or, heaven forfend, Richard Stallman, will rely on the precedents established by the ACLU to allow th
Re:This is something to really ponder. (Score:1)
Re:This is something to really ponder. (Score:2)
Re:This is something to really ponder. (Score:1)
New Zealand - 1893
Australia - 1902
Finland - 1906
But, you may not know that the first place in the world to give women equal suffrage was the Territory of Wyoming in 1869. Now I know why the nickname for Wyoming is "The Equality State".
Re:This is something to really ponder. (Score:2)
But, you may not know that the first place in the world to give women equal suffrage was the Territory of Wyoming in 1869. Now I know why the nickname for Wyoming is "The Equality State".
Yep I had heard that. It's pretty amazing to think that it wasn't really until the 20th century that western 'democracies' gave women the vote.
now they are considered pioneers... (Score:3, Insightful)
the scary part is that if such a movement were to take place in this days, I fear that it would not work - because all the draconian laws that are passing in the US would prevent it and eradicate it at the very beginning.
those in power forgot that history and people's opinion changes, and using technology to freeze progress only results in delaying a country's development.
imho, of course.
One man's Photoshop is another man's bromide. (Score:2)
Wrong section? (Score:2)
Or am I underestimating 1870s technology?
Re: (Score:2)
Survey this! (Score:2)
to Skirt Lengths to the E.R.A." title.
Not Old News Yet (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe there will never be a solution (Score:1)
It boils down to human psychology. People love to generalize. It makes life a million times easier than having to approach every situation as if you'd never seen it before. "Women are weak" - it's not an absolute truth, but put a woman beside a man, and chances are the man will be stronger, simply because of genetic difference
Black and White sexism (Score:2)
When I was a kid I loved to play with dolls (actually, I still have a few). and at recess I played with the girls, because the boys absolutely bored me. I have never had a hypercompetetive attitude and "sports" is, so far as I'm concerned, yet another religion this world would would be better without.
And I've known many women who absol
Re:Black and White sexism (Score:1)
I was talking statistics, not individuals. Take a hundred men and a hundred women, and total up how much each group can lift. Men are stronger, on average. This isn't "black and white" at all - it's an average. Men are not stronger as individuals, but I never said they were.
What I said was that given that 70% (made up stat) of the men a child meets are stronger than an averag
Re:Black and White sexism (Score:2)
Ergo, what does 90% of the stuff you were talking about have to do with the status of men over women? When was the last time you had to physically defend yourself from an attack, much less stand up for "your" woman? And what makes you so certain that physical strength would even be the relevant defense factor in the event of such an attack?
Re:Black and White sexism (Score:1)
Women have less incident of schitzophrenia than men. Women have less incident of genius than men. Women are more emotional than men. Men are more aggressive than women. Men are more logical than women. Women are more empathetic than men. Men and women have different thought processes, resulting in different decisions under the same circumstances.
Half of these I've read studies about, the othe
You still don't get it (Score:2)
How about if we say "blacks are better runners than white people and mexicans all like spicy food and have black hair..."
So far as that "friendly" stuff - do you actually KNOW any women? And sin
Re:You still don't get it (Score:1)
I don't understand what your point is about blacks/mexicans. But to answer your question, the best black athletes are better runners than the best white ones, judging from Olympic run
Re:You still don't get it (Score:2)
I don't think you'd know an argument -- let alone how to refute one -- if it bit you on the arse. What "stupid shit" was "refuted"? And where was it "refuted"? You said a lot of things that sounded PC yet provided no material to back up your claims -- and you even suggest what he says ACTUALLY true:
and You REALLY don't get it (Score:1)
You gotta get over this nonsense. It is crippling your ability to think. What makes the people at Merriam Webster so much more knowledgable about a given topic than others who are able to research? And what makes a "wiki" so goddamn refutable when the information cited is directly from the APA? When was the last time you saw Brittanica cataloging all its references?
Here's what I think. I think the OP made s
Re:and You REALLY don't get it (Score:2)
You obviously have no idea how wiki's work. Wiki's are (A) not static, (B) editable by anyone regardless of qualifications, (C) are even mentioned in the Wiki FAQ about reliability (read it sometime).
I'm amazed
Re:Black and White sexism (Score:2)