If someone is punching you in the face every single day, and nothing you try that’s non violent works, but suddenly you get results when you push back, wouldn’t you employ that method? Sure, it hurts the person punching you, but they were punching you.
And suffragettes put bombs in mailboxes and threw their bodies under horses. 2nd wave feminists were far more "anti-man" than modern feminists (there aren't too many political lesbians nowadays). The "peaceful protest" that people recall so fondly rarely was so peaceful but is instead used as a cudgel to resist all change today by claiming that activists aren't "doing it right".
And you think that had a positive effect on women's suffrage?
> 2nd wave feminists were far more "anti-man" than modern feminists
Well so what? Was suppressing men an actual tactic that contributed to progress?
It wasn't obtained through asking politely.
> The campaign was halted at the outbreak of war in August 1914 without having brought about votes for women, as suffragettes pledged to pause their campaigning to aid the nation's war effort.
> The extent to which suffragette militancy contributed to the eventual enfranchisement of women in 1918 has been debated by historians, although the consensus of historical opinion is that the militant campaign was not effective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette_bombing_and_arson_...
In the U.S. there is still a major fight for women's reproductive rights, with frequent backsliding (TX is the most extreme recent example).
> All of this progress has occurred without any of the radical discrimatory tactics that are used today.
Every step toward restoring human rights to marginalized groups has been labeled radical (because technically it is radical compared to the status quo) and must come at the expense of some privilege that others hold. Privilege, however, is not a human right and therefore not something inherently worthy of protection.
The other side argues that the fetus (usually called "unborn") have independent heartbeats and unique DNA, and as such have their own right to life. That is why they use the term "pro-life".
This seems to be the crux of our entire political situation as a country (has been for awhile, though certainly feels amplified the past 15 years).
Ask, talk to, or overhear any of the people in texas who support the bill, and not one of them will give a damn about, or even consider as an issue, "control over female reproduction". That is your concern, not theirs.
The Dutch simplified the most useful rule in the 17th century: "live and let live", it was codified into (maritime) law.
We have a system that cannot accommodate all views and opinions, but if we gonna call it democracy, at least the minorities should not be discriminated on.
But yeah, a bullies freedom of speech and someone with green hair crossing paths will cause some potential friction. If not right there on the spot, people will vent online. Case in point, there's this guy Nick Szabo , intelligent person, but damn his Twitter feed and contributions make you wonder if he dresses up as a klansman in the nights.
Would that happen to be the same Dutch that were heavily involved in the slave trade (about the same time you mention)?
The statement is potentially nice, though.
What's interesting is that men's suffrage was often justified by conscription: that people shouldn't be sent to fight wars they didn't have a say in. But then women got suffrage without having to be conscripted on the basis of equality, while only men still got conscripted. Not a great deal for men!