Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

High-Tech Surveillance's First Target: Suffragettes

Comments Filter:
  • by rodentia (102779) on Friday October 03, 2003 @06:22PM (#7128513)

    One man's terrorist is another man's Women's Rights advocate. . . . Er.
  • "Oh don't lean on me man, cause you can't afford the ticket
    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.
  • by pwagland (472537) on Friday October 03, 2003 @06:29PM (#7128567) Journal
    How about we change that blurb to:
    The blahblah chronicle has an article, funny because [of] the time that has passed, but extremely serious at the time, about the efforts of the South African government to keep an eye on black rights advocates.
    What?!?

    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...

    • No... I think you're being a bit overly serious here.

      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
      • by pwagland (472537) on Friday October 03, 2003 @07:09PM (#7128964) Journal
        No... I think you're being a bit overly serious here.
        Perhaps I am being overly serious, however I think that there is a serious danger in the tendency to trivialise that which we currently take for granted. In trivialising these things we make them less valuable.
        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.
        You say that we take it for granted, yet check out these statistics: Admittedly the situation is 1000% better than it used to be. They do have the right to vote, but Suffrage was about more than just the vote. It was about equal rights in all aspects of society. You are right that many people just take the current situation for granted, that is why I compared it to the aprtheid regime... many people still find that outrageous.
        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 today, and are today's dissidents tomorrow's heroes? And if that's so, why aren't they today's heroes?
        As another poster wrote, todays terrorists are tomorrows heroes. Yes, the women in the Suffrage movement were considered to be terrorists... and indeed many of their actions would get them labelled as terrorists today.
        • Comparison of society attitudes to homosexual men and women. (sorry can't find a link for this one, but lesbian women are by far more discriminated against than gay men)

          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
          • 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 be gay.

            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

      • As another poster wrote, todays terrorists are tomorrows heroes. Yes, the women in the Suffrage movement were considered to be terrorists... and indeed many of their actions would get them labelled as terrorists today.

        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
    • to the extreme reaction to the article.....

      Could it be its your *special* time of the month?

      I just couldn't resist. Bye Bye Karma.

      ;)

    • not "funny, haha" but "funny strange".
    • What is funny to me is not the woman's fight, but the extremist reaction of those in power -- That someone would see so much threat in women's fight for the right to vote that they would treat them as terrorists and threats to society.

      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

  • Err.. what am I missing? What is funny about the article?
  • It seems completely outrageous from my child-of-the-seventies perspective that there was a time when the government would have considered someone who wanted women to have the right to vote to be a terrorist. And yet this really happened, not only in Britain but here in the United States.

    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,
    • by mellon (7048) * on Friday October 03, 2003 @07:54PM (#7129301) Homepage
      Not at all! The ACLU frequently rights against civil rights. In California, they led the opposition against racist university admissions (arguing that it is OK to punish individuals for their skin color in the name of "diversity"). They have an entire division devoted to punishing people for having the wrong skin color. (shows how the ACLU opposes due process)

      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.

      Elsewhere, the ACLU fights to censor the speech of individuals who happen to use religious terminology in their speech. (shows how the ACLU opposes the first amendment).

      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.

    • It seems completely outrageous from my child-of-the-seventies perspective that there was a time when the government would have considered someone who wanted women to have the right to vote to be a terrorist.

      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
      • You from Finland?
          • And, I looked it up in the meantime. I visited Helsinki, the very beautiful hometown of Linus Torvalds, in early August, and I thought I remembered our tour guide saying that Finland was the first to give women the vote. I think she must have said ONE of the first.

            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".

            • 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.
  • by kipple (244681) on Friday October 03, 2003 @07:43PM (#7129204) Journal
    but then they were treated as we treat "terrorists" now.
    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.
  • Evelyn Manesta resisted and eventually a guard was used to restrain her around the neck. But when the photograph was reproduced in the official rogue's gallery, it had been doctored - replacing the arm with a fashionable lady's scarf.
    Hmmmm.
  • Shouldn't this be in "Your Rights Offline"?

    Or am I underestimating 1870s technology? :)
  • This reminds me of the episode of the Man Show where they got some guy to set up a table and take signatures for a petition to "Stop women's suffrage now!" Plenty of women signed it....
  • I don't think that was covered in the "33 Things Every Girl Should Know About Women's History: From Suffragettes [blat.info]
    to Skirt Lengths to the E.R.A." title.
  • Not Old News Yet (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Omega037 (712939)
    In some places in the world, women are still seen as property or lesser individuals. While most of these places are in the Middle East and Africa, even in more developed countries it can be found. In America, there are still very few female politicians, business executives, and military leaders. In the Far East, women are often seen as second class citizens and treated as such. They believe that a womans place is to take care her husband, raise her husbands children, and obey any command of her husband.
    • I hate to say it, but maybe this will continue to be the status quo. This is a different issue from racism, because there are obvious and measurable differences between the sexes.

      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
      • What you just created is a vivid black and white ink drawing with absolutely no shading. There aren't even any attempts at shading or hiding the distinct lines you've drawn.

        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

        • Either I didn't write the post well, or you misinterpreted - a lot of what you said doesn't pertain to what I was trying to say.

          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
          • Again I ask: WTF does physical strength have to do with 90% of the jobs performed in the US? How does being a good goalie make one a better plant manager?

            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?

            • What the hell? I was using a simple example everyone could relate to. My point isn't that "men are strong".

              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
              • So you make your point by repeating all the stupid shit that was already refuted? Those differences you list are all related to a lot more than whether or not someone has a pair of nuts. They relate to things like brain physiology - which is also related to developmental hormone levels - which is also related to...

                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

                • I don't quite understand what you're driving at here. I'm saying that there are differences between men and women. I'm saying that humans will pick up on those differences. Those differences will then be converted to stereotypes. And those stereotypes will be applied in situations where they probably shouldn't be applied.

                  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
                • So you make your point by repeating all the stupid shit that was already refuted?

                  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:

                  ...even if all that other stuff were true, what does it mean?

                  ...And it appears this section of the brain is, as a rule, "bi

                  • But that would be expected from someone who cites a wiki [slashdot.org] as an authoratative source.

                    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

                    • 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?

                      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).

                      And what makes a "wiki" so goddamn refutable when the information cited is directly from the APA?

                      I'm amazed

        • What's needed for programming isn't language skills but rather logical and visuo-spatial thinking processes. Programming languages are different enough from natural languages anyway that the special "language skills" you attribute to women probably aren't even relevant. Computer programming is primarily dealing with procedures (as in logic, mathematics, algorithms, etc.) and structures (as in entities, objects, pieces). Even if, generally, women are indeed more capable with the "language skills" you're refe

If Machiavelli were a hacker, he'd have worked for the CSSG. -- Phil Lapsley

Working...