|
Post by gillianren on Apr 24, 2008 19:28:00 GMT -4
If 'feminism' is part of your core values, should not 'gay rights', 'immigrant rights', 'native rights', 'male rights' and many others be too? We just try to give equal rights to everyone. I guess the gist of this is that I'm not too familiar with feminism being part of a political platform. I think the fact that it still has to be, that American women didn't get the vote until 1920 and still don't make equal wages for equal work, says more about my country than I'm really happy about. But, yes, I am for equal rights for everybody--leaving aside such obvious exceptions as people convicted of crimes, who get certain rights taken away as punishment. The right of freedom of movement, for example!
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Apr 24, 2008 21:18:14 GMT -4
If 'feminism' is part of your core values, should not 'gay rights', 'immigrant rights', 'native rights', 'male rights' and many others be too? We just try to give equal rights to everyone. I guess the gist of this is that I'm not too familiar with feminism being part of a political platform. I think the fact that it still has to be, that American women didn't get the vote until 1920 and still don't make equal wages for equal work, says more about my country than I'm really happy about. But, yes, I am for equal rights for everybody--leaving aside such obvious exceptions as people convicted of crimes, who get certain rights taken away as punishment. The right of freedom of movement, for example! Well, we only beat you by three years (1917). The next federal election was in 1921, and a woman Agnes Macphail was elected to Parliament. And I think the feminist movement in the late sixties was vital to the growth of both our nations - indeed, the world.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 24, 2008 21:22:59 GMT -4
Parts of America gave women the vote before 1920. The Utah Territory had women's suffrage in 1870, before it was a state. Then the Feds took it away in 1887 because they felt women were voting for the wrong people in territory government - namely LDS church leaders who were polygamists. It came back again in 1895, when it was written into the Utah State constitution. By 1920 the rest of the nation caught up with us.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Apr 24, 2008 21:46:16 GMT -4
Parts of America gave women the vote before 1920. The Utah Territory had women's suffrage in 1870, before it was a state. Then the Feds took it away in 1887 because they felt women were voting for the wrong people in territory government - namely LDS church leaders who were polygamists. It came back again in 1895, when it was written into the Utah State constitution. By 1920 the rest of the nation caught up with us. 1777 Women lose the right to vote in New York. 1780 Women lose the right to vote in Massachusetts. 1784 Women lose the right to vote in New Hampshire. 1807 Women lose the right to vote in New Jersey, the last state to revoke the right. 1868 Fourteenth amendment ratified. Fifteenth amendment passes Congress, giving the vote to black men. Women petition to be included but are turned down. 1870 Utah territory grants woman suffrage. 1887 Utah women lose right to vote. 1895 Utah women regain suffrage. 1896 Idaho grants woman suffrage. 1910 Washington (state) grants woman suffrage. 1912 Oregon, Arizona, and Kansas grant woman suffrage. 1920 The Nineteenth Amendment becomes law on August 26 It's hard to believe nowadays that women weren't allowed to vote. Or that 150 years ago in the U.S. you could own a human being. Or that 50 years ago in my country you could take native children away from their parents and put them in special schools. Or that thirty years ago hardly any men changed diapers, or cooked. Or that forty years ago I thought I was going to hell. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Apr 24, 2008 22:28:04 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by The Third Man on Apr 26, 2008 10:35:39 GMT -4
The way I see it is like having two boxers fighting it out, and knowing that whoever wins will meet the Heavyweight Champion. The only thing is, whoever wins is so beat up that they aren't in shape come match time. Stamford Bridge. . .
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Apr 26, 2008 10:51:32 GMT -4
The way I see it is like having two boxers fighting it out, and knowing that whoever wins will meet the Heavyweight Champion. The only thing is, whoever wins is so beat up that they aren't in shape come match time. Stamford Bridge. . . ..except Hillary and Obama are supposed to be on the same side. I think. I really expect a lot of things that both of them have said to come back and bite them. McCain, I'm sure, is writing all of it down. EDIT: Now that I'm thinking a little bit clearer, I can see that my original analogy is also incorrect as two boxers would clearly not "be on the same side", but bitter rivals. Unless that description could be use to describe Hillary's and Obama's relationship also.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Apr 26, 2008 11:21:50 GMT -4
Sarcasm, I take it?
|
|
|
Post by The Third Man on Apr 26, 2008 11:39:35 GMT -4
That part of the post was directed toward wdmundt, but no, not sarcastic at all. I think it's a legitimate question if one believes the state courts should have the final say in the way elections are run - don't you?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Apr 26, 2008 12:30:23 GMT -4
That part of the post was directed toward wdmundt, but no, not sarcastic at all. I think it's a legitimate question if one believes the state courts should have the final say in the way elections are run - don't you? I don't know how your American system works. Frankly, if it is a federal election then the feds should be calling the shots I would imagine. I think that is the way it works in Canada. I've noticed that the states seem to have more powers than our provinces do. For instance, how many movies have I seen where the criminal is driving frantically to the the state line to escape the police. Here, the RCMP would keep following you to Baffin Island if necessary. ;D So I guess we are more centralized in Canada. I'd have to do more research on that.
|
|
|
Post by The Third Man on Apr 26, 2008 12:50:20 GMT -4
I don't know how your American system works. Well, it's not really my system. For instance, how many movies have I seen where the criminal is driving frantically to the the state line to escape the police. Here, the RCMP would keep following you to Baffin Island if necessary. ;D Would they stand politely in the queue, behind the criminal, to buy ferry tickets? So I guess we are more centralized in Canada. I'd have to do more research on that. I don't have any intention of arguing that one system is better than another here, nor do I plan to argue one side or the other in the 2000 US election. I just want to know if the arguments made in this thread are made out of principle, or out of convenience. ETA - oops, the arguments weren't made in this thread, but in another. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by The Third Man on Apr 26, 2008 12:55:24 GMT -4
EDIT: Now that I'm thinking a little bit clearer, I can see that my original analogy is also incorrect as two boxers would clearly not "be on the same side", but bitter rivals. Unless that description could be use to describe Hillary's and Obama's relationship also. Why not? They each want to win against each other, don't they? Perhaps they would feel that if they were to lose in the first fight, they would want the opponent who defeated them to win the second fight. Or maybe not. If they lose, but McCain wins the general, then they can run again in four years instead of eight. . .
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 26, 2008 13:09:24 GMT -4
The states used to have even more power than they do now. For instance, before 1914 the state legislatures elected senators. The Seventeenth ammendment changed that to allow them to be elected directly by popular vote. That made the state governments much less powerful, because they now had little influence on the Federal level.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 26, 2008 13:30:50 GMT -4
First--due to state extradition laws, the most likely outcome for "making for the state line" is encountering a road block of the other state's police. Then again, the FBI certainly would fill the position of the RCMP, except that I suspect the ratio of FBI agents to citizens is much lower than Mounties to citizens. At any rate, the FBI can easily cross state lines if they are called in to do so.
Second . . . my problem with the ruling has never been that it struck down state election law. My problem has been that they, unconstitutionally, declared the decision to set no legal precedent.
And, yes, both Hilary and Obama would want the other to win instead of McCain, because they do agree on a lot of things. And, no, I don't consider that a failing. After all, people join one party or the other for a reason. McCain agrees with W. about things, and we don't consider that to be a sign that there's no real difference between them. All it means is that they're both Republicans--and, after November, I will have a perfect record of not having voted for either of them.
I think it's actually rather healthy to have some real competition for the nomination this year. I think it's time for us liberals (and apparently, most Democrats are more liberal than their elected officials--indeed, quite a lot of the population is more liberal than the elected Democrats) to really think about what we believe and really do something about it.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 27, 2008 10:49:19 GMT -4
Second . . . my problem with the ruling has never been that it struck down state election law. My problem has been that they, unconstitutionally, declared the decision to set no legal precedent. Again I would have to ask, where exactly does it say in the Constitution that the decisions of the Supreme Court always must set legal precedence? If it's not in the Constitution then it's not unconstitutional, is it?
|
|