T Nation

Women's Fight to Vote Tied to Declining SMV


These postcards made me think of TNation.

http://updates.jezebel.com/post/34858880404/before-women-were-granted-the-right-to-vote-in


:slight_smile:


And we totally won!

Women are only good for making bread pudding.

What is the point of this thread?

Man bashing?

Jizzabel is the Fox News equivalent for leftist women.

Yeah, women like, never ever say anything negative about men, anywhere. Ever.

I don’t know, these postcards don’t exactly seem so far off the mark…

https://www.google.co.jp/search?q=famous+suffragettes&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.yahoo:en-US:official&client=firefox&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=ja&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=RMqVUOGpKMihige9_4CQCw&biw=1280&bih=645&sei=ScqVUIvhN4yiigeZ84CoCQ

Nah, I’m not meaning to bash. I thought it was funny in light of the frequent SMV charts and such I see here. I know men are negged, too. Again, it’s meant to be light, not vicious. I mean, they’re goofy post cards that are almost a hundred years old. Maybe there’s even truth to them, I don’t know.

Not trying to start a war.

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I don’t know, these postcards don’t exactly seem so far off the mark…

https://www.google.co.jp/search?q=famous+suffragettes&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.yahoo:en-US:official&client=firefox&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=ja&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=RMqVUOGpKMihige9_4CQCw&biw=1280&bih=645&sei=ScqVUIvhN4yiigeZ84CoCQ[/quote]

I have pointed out on these boards more than once that even today, with all the advantages women enjoy, it is terrifying to think about what it’s like to be an ugly woman. I don’t think that’s true for men, though maybe substitute extremely short or weak as similarly difficult challenges.

Anyway, it’s panic-inducing to think what an unattractive woman must have dealt with a hundred years ago. I’d have fought, too! What else was there for them to do?

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I don’t know, these postcards don’t exactly seem so far off the mark…

https://www.google.co.jp/search?q=famous+suffragettes&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.yahoo:en-US:official&client=firefox&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=ja&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=RMqVUOGpKMihige9_4CQCw&biw=1280&bih=645&sei=ScqVUIvhN4yiigeZ84CoCQ[/quote]

Except for hot-dog-eating-contest girl.

But I have to admit, it looks like there IS an element of truth to the plainness thing… at least in terms of those who made a difference.

Although, I don’t think that’s much different than the success that unattractive unmarried men have had in anything else. Without the pursuit of sex or maintenance of a relationship/family to clutter up daily life, there’s a lot of free time and redirected sexual energy to put into other pursuits.

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I don’t know, these postcards don’t exactly seem so far off the mark…

https://www.google.co.jp/search?q=famous+suffragettes&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.yahoo:en-US:official&client=firefox&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=ja&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=RMqVUOGpKMihige9_4CQCw&biw=1280&bih=645&sei=ScqVUIvhN4yiigeZ84CoCQ[/quote]

Except for hot-dog-eating-contest girl.

But I have to admit, it looks like there IS an element of truth to the plainness thing… at least in terms of those who made a difference.

Although, I don’t think that’s much different than the success that unattractive unmarried men have had in anything else. Without the pursuit of sex or maintenance of a relationship to clutter up daily life, there’s a lot of free time and redirected sexual energy to put into other pursuits.[/quote]

I agree, though I would point out that plainness was probably the rule rather than the exception back then, given the lack of appearance-enhancing products.

Still, you’re right in that people with no mate and no kids have more time and energy for causes. I would think that the married women who undertook this fight were probably unhappy at home as well, which would reinforce other stereotypes of the time.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I would point out that plainness was probably the rule rather than the exception back then, given the lack of appearance-enhancing products.[/quote]

Asking out of ignorance here: do you think that appearance-enhancing products would really have made that much difference for the women in those photos?

I’ve seen photos [on the internet] of how drastically makeup can change things… but in real life, most girls I’ve personally known (read: dated, lived with), don’t use much makeup to begin with. So I really just don’t know.

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I would point out that plainness was probably the rule rather than the exception back then, given the lack of appearance-enhancing products.[/quote]

Asking out of ignorance here: do you think that appearance-enhancing products would really have made that much difference for the women in those photos?

I’ve seen photos [on the internet] of how drastically makeup can change things… but in real life, most girls I’ve personally known (read: dated, lived with), don’t use much makeup to begin with. So I really just don’t know.[/quote]

I really don’t know, actually. I sort of assume that we’re not used to seeing pictures of women with no makeup and unaltered (straightened or product-enhanced) hair. Even our modern moisturizing soaps and shampoos probably increase freshness and attractiveness.

I’m just wondering if the relatively pretty women of the time would seem plain to us. The 6s, 7s, and 8s.

Okay, cool.

I’ll admit that I’m such a hikikomori that I had to go to urbandictionary.com to look up what SMV was.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I don’t know, these postcards don’t exactly seem so far off the mark…

https://www.google.co.jp/search?q=famous+suffragettes&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.yahoo:en-US:official&client=firefox&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=ja&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=RMqVUOGpKMihige9_4CQCw&biw=1280&bih=645&sei=ScqVUIvhN4yiigeZ84CoCQ[/quote]

Except for hot-dog-eating-contest girl.

But I have to admit, it looks like there IS an element of truth to the plainness thing… at least in terms of those who made a difference.

Although, I don’t think that’s much different than the success that unattractive unmarried men have had in anything else. Without the pursuit of sex or maintenance of a relationship to clutter up daily life, there’s a lot of free time and redirected sexual energy to put into other pursuits.[/quote]

I agree, though I would point out that plainness was probably the rule rather than the exception back then, given the lack of appearance-enhancing products.

Still, you’re right in that people with no mate and no kids have more time and energy for causes. I would think that the married women who undertook this fight were probably unhappy at home as well, which would reinforce other stereotypes of the time. [/quote]

The ones who were married would probably have been rather strongly discouraged by their husbands from engaging in such “frivolity.”

NOT saying they would have beat their wives, although some of them would have. But that society at that time DID actively discourage the notion that women should have a say in how the world is run. I am glad that FAIRNESS has been established at least for the most part women. The world was certainly good to most women a hundred years ago.

I do think now that the pendulum has possibly swung too far to the other side, though, which is probably the source of my quick, defensive response. I do not see women as “EQUAL” to men in the same way I do not see men as “equal” to women. We each have roles that we are suited to fill, and I believe families and society work best when most people inhabit the roles they are intended to.

Oink oink.

*edited for typos

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I would point out that plainness was probably the rule rather than the exception back then, given the lack of appearance-enhancing products.[/quote]

Asking out of ignorance here: do you think that appearance-enhancing products would really have made that much difference for the women in those photos?

I’ve seen photos [on the internet] of how drastically makeup can change things… but in real life, most girls I’ve personally known (read: dated, lived with), don’t use much makeup to begin with. So I really just don’t know.[/quote]

I really don’t know, actually. I sort of assume that we’re not used to seeing pictures of women with no makeup and unaltered (straightened or product-enhanced) hair. Even our modern moisturizing soaps and shampoos probably increase freshness and attractiveness.

I’m just wondering if the relatively pretty women of the time would seem plain to us. The 6s, 7s, and 8s.
[/quote]

I always thought it really came down to bone structure. You know ratios, symmetry, geometry and such. Pretty sure there’s a mathematical formula you can apply to that stuff. Don’t think soap gets it done, no matter what Biotherme or whoever wants you to believe. Also don’t imagine it’s changed much since, well, ever.

Not to say that “window dressing” doesn’t have a dramatic impact, cause I know it does.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I don’t know, these postcards don’t exactly seem so far off the mark…

https://www.google.co.jp/search?q=famous+suffragettes&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.yahoo:en-US:official&client=firefox&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=ja&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=RMqVUOGpKMihige9_4CQCw&biw=1280&bih=645&sei=ScqVUIvhN4yiigeZ84CoCQ[/quote]

Except for hot-dog-eating-contest girl.

But I have to admit, it looks like there IS an element of truth to the plainness thing… at least in terms of those who made a difference.

Although, I don’t think that’s much different than the success that unattractive unmarried men have had in anything else. Without the pursuit of sex or maintenance of a relationship to clutter up daily life, there’s a lot of free time and redirected sexual energy to put into other pursuits.[/quote]

I agree, though I would point out that plainness was probably the rule rather than the exception back then, given the lack of appearance-enhancing products.

Still, you’re right in that people with no mate and no kids have more time and energy for causes. I would think that the married women who undertook this fight were probably unhappy at home as well, which would reinforce other stereotypes of the time. [/quote]

The ones who were married would probably have been rather strongly discouraged by their husbands from engaging in such “frivolity.”

NOT saying they would have beat their wives, although some of them would have. But that society at that time DID actively discourage the notion that women should have a say in how the world is run. [/quote]

Yes, I’m imagining that the women out there campaigning probably had somewhat weak husbands, given that it would have been an embarrassment to them. Though maybe I underestimate them. Maybe some of them really believed in equal rights, for their unmarried daughters or sisters or whatever.

I don’t know about the pendulum swinging too far, though I acknowledge that in many cases men are now disadvantaged. I do agree that men and women are different and that’s good. I’m happy being a girl and I like boys who act like boys. But I am a feminine woman, both in the physical sense and personality-wise, who does well with both men and women.

Life is less kind to women who are too big or too ugly or too masculine. They don’t live like I do. It’s good that there are honorable options for them now, and for the feminine women who somehow become “tarnished” by a man or men they shouldn’t have trusted or submitted to, but did, as is some women’s nature.

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I would point out that plainness was probably the rule rather than the exception back then, given the lack of appearance-enhancing products.[/quote]

Asking out of ignorance here: do you think that appearance-enhancing products would really have made that much difference for the women in those photos?

I’ve seen photos [on the internet] of how drastically makeup can change things… but in real life, most girls I’ve personally known (read: dated, lived with), don’t use much makeup to begin with. So I really just don’t know.[/quote]

I really don’t know, actually. I sort of assume that we’re not used to seeing pictures of women with no makeup and unaltered (straightened or product-enhanced) hair. Even our modern moisturizing soaps and shampoos probably increase freshness and attractiveness.

I’m just wondering if the relatively pretty women of the time would seem plain to us. The 6s, 7s, and 8s.
[/quote]

I always thought it really came down to bone structure. You know ratios, symmetry, geometry and such. Pretty sure there’s a mathematical formula you can apply to that stuff. Don’t think soap gets it done, no matter what Biotherme or whoever wants you to believe. Also don’t imagine it’s changed much since, well, ever.

Not to say that “window dressing” doesn’t have a dramatic impact, cause I know it does.[/quote]

Well, if you’re saying it’s genetic (which I’m pretty sure you are), then it could be a matter of there simply being a higher number of attractive women in the world today.

Lets say that media/pop-culture is really only able to support and promote a hundred or so attractive women at a time… the most attractive 100 women from today will simply be more attractive than the 100 most attractive from 100 years ago.

There were ~1.75 billion people in the world in 1910; today there are 7.05 billion people. The top 100 people in any category today are bound to be “better” than the top 100 people from then.

And maybe that’s really it?

Although, I secretly like the idea that the health&beauty products industry subtly transformed the attractiveness of the average person.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I don’t know, these postcards don’t exactly seem so far off the mark…

https://www.google.co.jp/search?q=famous+suffragettes&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.yahoo:en-US:official&client=firefox&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=ja&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=RMqVUOGpKMihige9_4CQCw&biw=1280&bih=645&sei=ScqVUIvhN4yiigeZ84CoCQ[/quote]

Except for hot-dog-eating-contest girl.

But I have to admit, it looks like there IS an element of truth to the plainness thing… at least in terms of those who made a difference.

Although, I don’t think that’s much different than the success that unattractive unmarried men have had in anything else. Without the pursuit of sex or maintenance of a relationship to clutter up daily life, there’s a lot of free time and redirected sexual energy to put into other pursuits.[/quote]

I agree, though I would point out that plainness was probably the rule rather than the exception back then, given the lack of appearance-enhancing products.

Still, you’re right in that people with no mate and no kids have more time and energy for causes. I would think that the married women who undertook this fight were probably unhappy at home as well, which would reinforce other stereotypes of the time. [/quote]

The ones who were married would probably have been rather strongly discouraged by their husbands from engaging in such “frivolity.”

NOT saying they would have beat their wives, although some of them would have. But that society at that time DID actively discourage the notion that women should have a say in how the world is run. [/quote]

Yes, I’m imagining that the women out there campaigning probably had somewhat weak husbands, given that it would have been an embarrassment to them. Though maybe I underestimate them. Maybe some of them really believed in equal rights, for their unmarried daughters or sisters or whatever.

I don’t know about the pendulum swinging too far, though I acknowledge that in many cases men are now disadvantaged. I do agree that men and women are different and that’s good. I’m happy being a girl and I like boys who act like boys. But I am a feminine woman, both in the physical sense and personality-wise, who does well with both men and women. Life is less kind to women who are too big or too ugly or too masculine. They don’t live like I do. It’s good that there are honorable options for them now, and for the feminine women who somehow become “tarnished” by a man or men they shouldn’t have trusted or submitted to, but did, as is some women’s nature.

[/quote]

To clarify a little, I often see what I feel is overcompensation by women who appear to feel they need to “prove” that they can be everything that a man can be, and more. I see example after example of this, mostly in the media, but a lot on this site, too. And while it’s a great thing that women are more and more able to enjoy the rights they have been unfairly deprived of throughout basically all of human history, all too often any comparison with men in which women are viewed as not measuring up to some standard is misinterpreted as disenfranchisement. I know that my wife is a FAR better nurturer and has miles more patience than I do when one of our sons is whining or crying. By the same token, there are times when the boys NEED to be disciplined, or when one of us needs to take an aggressive leadership role in our business that requires giving orders or reprimanding an employee. She absolutely despises being put in the position to do any of these. And I’m just no good when the kids are acting up out of tiredness or frustration.

In general, there are things that women are better at, and things that men are better at, and families and societies whose members basically adhere to these roles are typically happier and more satisfied with their lives. Hell, just the fact that these arguments tend to be so evenly divided down gender lines should be a good indicator that there is something to the idea. I had a really good discussion about this with TBG back when SAMA and he were still around. I think you participated in it. The one about femininity and masculinity.