Slashdot Mirror
High-Tech Surveillance's First Target: Suffragettes
The BBC has an article, funny because the time that has passed but extremely serious at the time, about the efforts of the British government to keep an eye on women's suffrage advocates.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
One man's terrorist is another man's Women's Rights advocate. . . . Er.
illegitimii non ingravare
"Oh don't lean on me man, cause you can't afford the ticket
I'm back on Suffragette City
Oh don't lean on me man
Cause you ain't got time to check it
You know my Suffragette City
Is outta sight...she's all right"
- David Bowie.
Apparently, not as out of sight as we might have thought.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
How could that possibly be not funny?!?
Oh I get it... we're still meant to laugh at women and their attempts to get equal rights. Doh! I should of guessed earlier!!!
I'm sorry, but this is just as serious now, as it was back then... and a timely reminder that the government cannot be trusted to respect the privacy of the citizens that make their constituency. Think about it...
Err.. what am I missing? What is funny about the article?
"When I grow up, I want to be a weirdo"
It seems completely outrageous from my child-of-the-seventies perspective that there was a time when the government would have considered someone who wanted women to have the right to vote to be a terrorist. And yet this really happened, not only in Britain but here in the United States.
This is why organizations like the ACLU that fight for the civil rights of anybody whose civil rights have been trampled are so important - who knows when the next Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King, or, heaven forfend, Richard Stallman, will rely on the precedents established by the ACLU to allow them to continue to try to make the world a better place, despite the resistance of the powers that be.
"This is why organizations like the ACLU that fight for the civil rights of anybody whose civil rights have been trampled are so important"
Not at all! The ACLU frequently rights against civil rights. In California, they led the opposition against racist university admissions (arguing that it is OK to punish individuals for their skin color in the name of "diversity"). They have an entire division devoted to punishing people for having the wrong skin color. (shows how the ACLU opposes due process)
Elsewhere, the ACLU fights to censor the speech of individuals who happen to use religious terminology in their speech. (shows how the ACLU opposes the first amendment).
What we need is an organization that opposes all censorship, and supports due process for all individuals regardless of having the wrong skin color or gender. The Anti-Civil Liberties Union is not it.
Please visit this link:
aclu.org.
It describes in detail their program to encourage organizations to punish people for having the wrong skin color as part of a policy of achieving group diversity.
As another poster wrote, todays terrorists are tomorrows heroes. Yes, the women in the Suffrage movement were considered to be terrorists... and indeed many of their actions would get them labelled as terrorists today.
I think people need to remember this. Both when considering someone for hero worship and when condemning today's terrorists. A bit of perspective can do a world of good, a bit of time tends to provide it, lets try to keep the number of deaths low and respect the balance between safety and freedom that we've painfully constructed, most of it in much scarrier times but also with much more thought.
but then they were treated as we treat "terrorists" now.
the scary part is that if such a movement were to take place in this days, I fear that it would not work - because all the draconian laws that are passing in the US would prevent it and eradicate it at the very beginning.
those in power forgot that history and people's opinion changes, and using technology to freeze progress only results in delaying a country's development.
imho, of course.
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
More than mere navel gazing.
" The ACLU fights to prevent government-sponsored religious speech, particularly when it favors a particular religion."
No, they fight speech by individuals. And why should they care what religion it favors or not? "Congress shall make no law..."
"If you are serious about your religion, you should be all in favor of this"
Actually, I am much more serious about tolerance and protecting freedom of speech.
"If you enjoy the freedom to practice your religion, you might want to think twice about getting upset about people who fight to prevent that."
No, I am merely upset about the ACLU filing frivolous lawsuits to censor people whose speech happens to involve "religion". I enjoy freedom and which to preserve it, why is why I oppose the Anti-Civil Liberties Union and its gags.
"Chances are that 300 years ago"....
Nothing to do with anything.
"It's still probably illegal to talk about it in many countries around the world,"
This does not excuse the ACLU bringing the same sort of intolerance of free expression here.
Read the Bill of Rights. What part of it do you nut understand?
Shouldn't this be in "Your Rights Offline"?
:)
Or am I underestimating 1870s technology?
This reminds me of the episode of the Man Show where they got some guy to set up a table and take signatures for a petition to "Stop women's suffrage now!" Plenty of women signed it....
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
I don't think that was covered in the "33 Things Every Girl Should Know About Women's History: From Suffragettes
to Skirt Lengths to the E.R.A." title.
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
In some places in the world, women are still seen as property or lesser individuals. While most of these places are in the Middle East and Africa, even in more developed countries it can be found. In America, there are still very few female politicians, business executives, and military leaders. In the Far East, women are often seen as second class citizens and treated as such. They believe that a womans place is to take care her husband, raise her husbands children, and obey any command of her husband.
We look at an article like this we laugh and think back at how foolish we were to think women shouldn't have the right to vote. But when we do we should also remember that this isn't just some issue long resolved, but a continuing struggle. We should look at this article and think about how truly serious this issue is. It should be apparent in the fact that the police and intelligence organizations in what are considered the great democracies of freedom did things such as this not even a century ago.
Could it be its your *special* time of the month?
I just couldn't resist. Bye Bye Karma.
Nations":
Chances are that 300 years ago, it was illegal in most parts of Europe for you to practice whatever religion you practice. It's still probably illegal to talk about it in many countries around the world, or if not, it'll get you on surveillance lists here in the states.
Case in point: Scientology. Germany.
Well, some would argue that the German government has been a frontispiece for "Democratic Christianity" in Germany for years, anyway
All religions must be granted the respect of government, equally.
There is just no two ways about it - any government that doesn't, is not a government but becomes
{posted anonymously because i don't want anyone to know who i am...}
I hate to say it, but maybe this will continue to be the status quo. This is a different issue from racism, because there are obvious and measurable differences between the sexes.
It boils down to human psychology. People love to generalize. It makes life a million times easier than having to approach every situation as if you'd never seen it before. "Women are weak" - it's not an absolute truth, but put a woman beside a man, and chances are the man will be stronger, simply because of genetic differences. Thus the human mind wants to build that stereotype as a core belief. I suspect that is why you seldom see women as high-ranking military officers - deep down inside, their superiors don't believe they can be as "tough".
And I seriously cannot see any solution to this. Not through social programs, not through culural changes. People will always be constantly surrounded by men who are on average, stronger than women, and their mind will press that image onto others.
It doesn't just go for strength either. I believe that women are more nurturing, more emotional, and less prone to using pure reasoning in making decisions. This is *not* a bad thing - it is a different thing. And once again, these subtle differences will enforce themselves on the human mind.
So what's the solution? I don't think we will ever have "equality", where men and women are treated equally. Women are not just men with breasts. I think that the best solution would be to recognize that there are things that women do better than men, and nurture that. There has been a boom in female psychiatrists, for instance. Women generally are more empathetic than men, so this makes sense.
I think the best we can hope for is "parity", where women make the same money doing jobs they're good at as men do with jobs they're good at. I'm not saying this is right - I'm just saying that I can't see any way to overcome the overwhelming force of evolution. I'm also not saying that a woman can't rise to the top of the programming industry, or a man won't be able to rise to the top of whatever jobs eventually become mostly the domain of women. But I believe that the barrier to entry will always be higher simply because of preconceived notions of how well a gendre performs particular actions.
Last post!
When I was a kid I loved to play with dolls (actually, I still have a few). and at recess I played with the girls, because the boys absolutely bored me. I have never had a hypercompetetive attitude and "sports" is, so far as I'm concerned, yet another religion this world would would be better without.
And I've known many women who absolutely love sports, and not just women's sports. I have a girl cousin who can tell you what quarterback played for what team decades ago, and can roll off stats like a young Howard Cossell.
There is a section of the brain that connects the left and right hemispheres. Some studies have shown a correlation between the size of this "link" in the brain and many of the traits we consider "feminine" - increased language skills, more emotional in responses, etc. And it appears this section of the brain is, as a rule, "bigger" in women (another of those physiological differences you mention). But this, like the development of breasts, is not set in stone; plenty of women have this area less developed, and plenty of men have it developed larger than average.
So... even if all that other stuff were true, what does it mean? Women tend to have better language skills, so this should indicate women are better suited to programming jobs (for example), where language skills are quite relevant. And in advertising (for example) because of that "emotional" thing. And what about men? Who gives a shit if a man who sits at a desk all day is physically stronger than a woman? When was the last time you were put into a ring with the other guy you were up against for that promotion?
Those code words you use - like "overwhelming forces of evolution" - are the same excuses everyone else makes when the time comes to promote the man over the woman. It's the same attitude that fosters the notion of "women's work" even in the tech sector.
I can't tell you how many times I've heard this expression used - and if you go into any electronic assembly plant you'll see things are little different now than ever: hundreds of women and few men sitting around assembly stations, applying paste or soldering or inspecting assemblies while a few more men walk around "supervising" the floor. Walk into any call center and look at the proportion of women working the phones to the male managers walking the floor.
How is a man better suited to management than a woman? Yeah, I've known some women who were put into management who never should have been there - but I've known lots of men in that same boat.
You "can't see any way to overcome" this because you are not looking. You are, like the rest, too busy making excuses for why things have to be the way they are.
"Case in point: Scientology. Germany"
Scientology is not a religion. It is a cross between organized crime and a hoax, having been founded right after L Ron Hubbard stated that science fiction writers could use their imaginations to create fake religions and get rich tax-free.
How about if we say "blacks are better runners than white people and mexicans all like spicy food and have black hair..."
So far as that "friendly" stuff - do you actually KNOW any women? And since when is being nurturing a bad managerial trait? I've worked in places where the managers were all encouraged to be assholes, and I've worked in places where we were encouraged to be encouraging. Wanna guess which place was the more productive?
You gotta get over this nonsense. It is crippling your ability to think. What makes the people at Merriam Webster so much more knowledgable about a given topic than others who are able to research? And what makes a "wiki" so goddamn refutable when the information cited is directly from the APA? When was the last time you saw Brittanica cataloging all its references?
Here's what I think. I think the OP made some valid points that you feel arent PC to talk...
Hilarious.
A) You think I'm PC.
B) You think I care what a freak thinks.