Why do feminist's ignore the past?

Why do you put apostrophe'''s in plural'''''s?

What you need to know is things were not what they seem. Back in Colonial America, from 1607 to 1783; for example, when he/she was locked into the pillory; both had their ears nailed to the frame; upon release the ear was torn off. As for those in a higher social class; a woman could be whipped or publicly shamed for doing the same crime as a man, while the man, in turn, was only fined.

http://www.uncp.edu/home/canada/work/allam/1607178...

"Fines were a way of avoiding the physical punishments listed above. As stated before, hog theft had some surprising results. Colonists were either fined the equivalent of ten pounds or slashed twenty-five times at the whipping post upon their first offense. On top of the possible ten-pound fine, there was a fine of 400 pounds of tobacco. That tobacco was shared by the owner of the stolen hog and whomever informed authorities on who committed the theft. The second offense resulted in the criminal being locked in the Pillory with their ears nailed to the frame. When the thief was released, the nailed part of his/her ear was torn off. A third conviction was considered a felony and the criminal's case was then a matter of the higher General Court. Death was the punishment, be the thief free, slave or indentured servant. In many cases, a person's status determined how harsh his/her punishment was.

Those in a higher social class might be punished less for the same crime. This served true in the gender category as well. A woman could be whipped or publicly shamed for the same crime in which a man would only receive a fine. Slaves were always convicted at the local courts and were given physical punishment with disregard to whether it was the slave's first, second or third conviction. Children committed crime as well. At age fourteen, adolescents had to appear in court but if the court thought a child knew the difference between right and wrong (s)he could be tried as early as age 8. The harshest punishment children received was a trip to the whipping post. Slave children and orphans were most likely involved in criminal conviction."

Also, back in colonial America, we, women, did not get away with what we're getting away with today; for example, "Some 17th-century laws protected husbands — from wives who acquired debts, waged attacks, or committed adultery (a crime against both the husband and the community). The most common offense wives committed was verbal abuse." http://www.genealogymagazine.com/coloandma.html

I'm not saying laws were perfect in those days; it surely wasn't; however, our rights as women began with our forefathers, the very ones who built our country. To understand more read: http://colonial-america.suite101.com/article.cfm/h... , as well as, the previous link.

They have a very one-sided version of history, and some call it cherry-picking - I would, but I love cherries.

Whenever I remind them, as I've done probably three times now, of the relentless and often deadly struggle for ANY rights mostly carried by men from the Industrial Revolution on, via the Union movement, and so on, it is simply ignored. Always receives total thumbs-down - don't want to hear.

When I remind them that it was the work, courage, and sometimes deaths of these same men that actually put women into the kitchen and AWAY from deadly factories and mines, etc - it is ignored and down-thumbed.

When I point out that this same movement, primarily by men, lead to the demand for child education, which can be seen as the basis for modern feminism amongst other things, same-same.

When I point out that it was men who passed the laws that permitted the virulent growth of feminastyism, with all of its violent against men running mates, well ... the response is insult.

I clearly stated last night that equal pay for equal work has been the law since the 1970's, as I well know - totally dead in the water, that view - not acceptable to the doctrinal mass.

The list goes on and on - and the usual response is the same old drivel - 'men have privileges (what are they? Exactly?) , men have kept women down (safe in homes instead of deadly mines/factories and such), men prevented women from education - again the list goes on and on.

Yep - feminists want history to be herstory, and nothing else - and will not even look at facts presented to them if it doesn't agree with their doctrine.

I had the experience of sitting in a social studies class (one of I think two men), and having a handout called - A Timeline of Women's History in Australia. It detailed all the things they supposedly didn't have. I did a version called A Timelijne of Men's History in Australia, pointing out all the things they didn't have and suffered - no interest.

I think I still have them - I'll publish them here if I find them.

Contributions of ladies human beings? Oh, this is easy. Why do no longer we communicate approximately Margaret Brent; I hear she replaced right into a good criminal expert, and she or he additionally replaced into the 1st actual women people who demanded the perfect to vote, which she had accomplished in 1647. In 1650 Anne Bradstreet grew to become the 1st American female writer for publishing her e book of poetry "The late Muse these days sprung Up" Henrietta Johnston grew to become the 1st expert female artist in usa in 1707 So, enable's pass on forward to 1795 whilst Anne Parrish regular the living house of industry, the 1st charitable employer for women human beings in usa, in Philadelphia. Then in 1809 Mary Kies replaced into the 1st female, as I know it, ever, to acquire a patent for weaving straw with silk. In 1824 the 1st severe college for women opens up in Worcester, Massachusetts. All of those are advantageous contributions i think of; from an anti-feminist female. Contributions that prepare we are and have been constantly in a position in the previous feminism. i spotted that your earliest inventor replaced into around 1850, Josephine Cochran, the inventer of the dishwasher; a pair of years after the Seneca Falls march of 1848. There wasn't one point out of Tabitha Babbett who invented the around observed in 1812 or of Augusta Ada Byron who invented the computer software in 1842. it particularly is often under pressure after the 1848 march in Seneca Falls, manhattan that ladies human beings particularly grew to become something would desire to ultimately open their mouths with the point to communicate. we girls human beings have been doing plenty greater suitable than what you feminist enable on. and that's the fact.

OH, that's easy! Ask a difficult question!

The reason is simple: no lie is too great for the Feminists to repeat, no fact to large to ignore. Feminism is pretty obviously a mentally ill hate movement like the Ku Klux Klan. UNLIKE the Ku Klux Klan, the Feminists have never been exposed or roundly condemned.

Instead, they have been grovelled to. Imagine if the Ku Klux Klan had been grovelled to instead of people standing up to it? Imagine how bad things would be for blacks, for Catholics, for Mormons, for Jehovah's Witnesses, for asian people?

Now, that's what it's like to be a male under the lunacy of Feminism, only without the showy stuff. Think about it.

OMGz!

We does not ignores the past, we am just highly selective about what we remembers.... For instance, we am easily remembering that teh evul men oppressivating us from when Jesus Christ was borned (from a superiorous womyn). Howevurs, we am quite happy to selectively turn a blind eye to the areas of the past that benefitted womyn.

Hm, well that's not entirely true ...

Are you really arguing that prior to c. 1950 women could not be imprisoned or executed? Really?

Edit

"So crimes women where held accountable for?Treason, murder and treason.

Even to this day women receive a 115% sentencing discount."

These two statements are two of the most ridiculous things I have ever read on GWS.

Tell that to XENA WARRIOR PRINCESS!

joking.

Edit:

1) They don't ignore it, that's why they came into existence.

2)...........Shame

3) I think they're hoping no one will notice.

Like every lobbyist, they ignore facts that aren't beneficial.

Chivalry is dead, the feminists killed it.