Taking the Red Pill - The Truth about Gender Politics: Universal Suffrage

Blog pieces

BBC Double Standards
Con not Consultation
Pakistani Boys
Reply to Robert Webb
Afghan Boys
Iran - Those Poor Oppressed Women
The Rise Of The Ironic Man-Hater
Do You Know Any Women, Mike?
Who Is It That's Oppressed?
Compulsory feminism from the EU
Who can be more feminist?
Who are the sick fucks?
Karen Woodall responds to Yvette Cooper
Are UK universities only for women now?
Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict
Elliot Rodger, the Alta Vista killings and the MHRM
Richard Scudamore and free speech
Killing Boys is Not News
Quiet Riot Girl responds to Kirsty Wark
Porn - Where's The Harm?
More Sins of the Guardian
#KillAllMen
The Day After Men (fiction)
The Propaganda Inundation and Circumcision
Lord Rennard
Female Serial Killer, Joanna Dennehy
Flesh and Buns
Tweet Trolling and Real Discimination
STEM Calendars and Men's Hour
Forget Rebranding Feminism
Blurred Lines
Let's hear it for Sharking
Le Week-End (film review)
Hack the Home
Sex Fiend or Victim?

The essay linked below concerns the true history of universal suffrage in the UK. If you think that universal suffrage means "votes for women" think again. When the 1918 Representation of the People Act was passed, giving the parliamentary vote to women, 50% of men did not have the vote either. And do not believe the propaganda that it was the suffragettes who won the vote for women. An attempt had been made to pass an Act giving votes to women in 1910, but it was amended into obliteration and dropped. After the start of WWI in 1914 the suffragettes suspended their campaigning in favour of war work, including recruiting drives. So it was not pressure from suffragette protests that gave women the vote in 1918. The truth is that women got the vote as a collateral consequence of the necessity of giving the vote to working class men to avoid revolution.

The death of a million British men in the trenches was unprecedented. Whilst war had been a way of life in the British Empire for generations, previous wars involved thousands or tens of thousands of deaths. WWI was another thing entirely. Having so many men away from home posed serious logistical difficulties to carrying out a general election. And even when the men returned, would the bulk of working class men tolerate any longer being disenfranchised after such a bloody conflict? The British establishment would not have forgotten, as most people now have, that the years immediately prior to the outbreak of WWI had seen more working class strike action than at any time before (or since). It was the "Great Unrest". The establishment were acutely aware that the working class men who had been so bolshie before the war would soon be returning. Their mood would not have been improved by having gone through hell in the trenches and seen vast numbers of their friends killed. That the 1918 Act immediately followed the Russian revolution in 1917 is not coincidence, noting that the Russian insurrections began amongst the troops of a disaffected army.

So please read,

Universal Suffrage - The True History

A video on the same theme,