Random
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Women not allowed to vote in the past is evidence enough of what our status is.

Conservative anti feminist uses the excuse that women could speak in public so it wasn't that bad for women and who cares if we couldn't vote, her claim is that it's not a sign that women were treated as less than. I'm sorry but if any female takes not being able to vote as a sign that men respected women is a dumb a ss, no sweetie, you couldn't vote because men thought you were a dumb a ss, not because they wanted to protect you or whatever excuse you use to justify it. What a dummy. I'm so tired of people denying the obvious. News flash, abusers are abusers dumb a ss... if they don't give you rights, they don't feel like you're human. Take a hint.

[media=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_1y9k5NDcM]
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
I do have some minor problems with Drianna's argument about conservatives and the founding fathers. Hamilton would have a fit calling Aaron Burr for individual rights and therefore a conservative.

Many of the founding fathers were afraid of the people. It was the exceptions like Hamilton that were for individual rights.

You’re right to flag complexity—“the Founding Fathers” weren’t a single ideological bloc, and labeling them with modern labels like “conservative” can be misleading. A few concise points to keep in mind:

Diversity of views: Some founders (Jefferson, Madison) emphasized republicanism, popular sovereignty, and broad civic participation; others (Hamilton, John Adams) prioritized a strong central government, stability, and protection of property and commercial interests. They sometimes agreed on goals but differed sharply on means.

Different definitions of “conservative”: In 18th-century context, fearing rapid democratic change, prioritizing order, property, and hierarchy often looked “conservative.” Hamilton’s advocacy for strong federal power and a robust commercial state sometimes put him at odds with more populist founders, but his defense of certain individual liberties doesn’t map neatly onto today’s conservative/liberal labels.

Individual rights vs. distrust of popular rule: Many founders supported enumerated individual rights (e.g., the Bill of Rights) while simultaneously worrying about majoritarian excess or “mob rule.” That tension explains why some wrote checks on popular power (electoral college, Senate, lifetime judiciary) while still endorsing rights protections.

Context matters: Revolutionary-era fears (instability, factionalism, economic collapse) shaped institutional design. Hamilton’s positions reflected a desire to create a durable, prosperous republic—even when that required constraining some aspects of direct popular control.

Surprised that Drianna didn't bring up about women's property ownership rights being denied even in the 1960s. Women just couldn't even get credit to buy any property at all. That was changed in the 1970s.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment