The following comes from a November 4 Time Magazine article by Marjorie Dannenfelser. Dannenfelser is the president of the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life political action committee.
The suffragette movement is the subject of the new movie Suffragette. Starring Carey Mulligan, Helena Bonham Carter and Meryl Streep, it tells the story of the struggle for women’s rights in Great Britain from the viewpoint of a young, working-class mother. Thousands of women like her fought courageously for the right to vote so they could use that power to improve the economic and social conditions that oppressed them and their families.
In America, too, brave and farsighted suffragettes worked to obtain the right to vote, and thus the right to true citizenship, for women. Their victory paved the way for the full participation by women in the economic, social and political spheres. Our nation has been incomparably enriched by their contributions and accomplishments.
But would those early pioneers recognize the movement that claims to speak for the rights of women today?
On the issue of abortion, they would not. Many of today’s feminists see abortion as one of the touchstones of their movement. Yet many of the early leaders of the women’s suffrage movement in the U.S. believed that the rights of mother and child are inextricably linked and that the right to life and the right to vote are rooted in the inherent dignity of each human person.
The public statements of many early champions of women’s rights in the U.S. make clear their opposition. Elizabeth Cady Stanton referred to abortion as “infanticide” and wrote that “when we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.” Victoria Woodhull, the first female candidate for president, wrote: “Every woman knows that if she were free, she would never bear an unwished-for child, nor think of murdering one before its birth.” And Elizabeth Blackwell, the first woman to receive a medical degree in the U.S., wrote: “The gross perversion and destruction of motherhood by the abortionist filled me with indignation, and awakened active antagonism.”
Today, our mission is equally simple. Women who join us reject the idea that feminism requires them to be at war with their own children, or to direct their tax dollars to organizations that perform abortions. In so doing, they honor the legacy of the original champions of women’s rights.
As pointed out (and Heavily Censored) repeatedly, Women are the only ‘oppressed’ class born in to the houses of the rich and powerful in Equal numbers.
Queen Victoria is a prime example[ chosen at a young age as Monarch because she was the first Protestant in the line of succession (about 50 Catholics were disqualified because of Faith), and it wasn’t just ‘Lords’ who ruled the British Empire – but ‘Ladies’ too.
The Class / Caste system in England and elsewhere put Women of ‘noble birth’ far above Men – who were regularly Conscripted (no Female Draft in USA – yet) to fight for Victoria and Her Empire.
Radical Gender Feminists don’t want such facts discussed in Their Tailored Narrative of ‘patriarchal oppression’.
Victoria was the the granddaughter of George III. After her father and his older brother died without legitimate issue she became Queen. Who are these 50 Catholic heirs she supposedly leapfrogged? While some wealthy Victorian women enjoyed influence, they hardly ruled the Empire. Peeresses “in their own right” could not sit in Parliament until very recently. Wives of peers had no more legal rights than commoners. Influence a few had, particularly widows or those with liberal-minded father or husbands, but they had no power.
TB – the “Mem-Sahibs” of India might disagree with your assessment of their power and influence, not to mention Victoria and other Female Monarchs.
This was an era before electronic communication and Social Connections / Salons were the Network of the Era. To discount the role played by Women is to ignore facts of that age, and to discount the many Underclass Males worked to death in coal mines to heat the homes of the wealthy.
As Head of the ‘Church of England’. the Queen or King cannot be Catholic by Law, and as for Heirs – the distinction between “Legitimate” and other descendants is not one we make today.
SEE
History of the Monarchy > The Hanoverians > Victoria
https://www.royal.gov…
Saw the movie with an audience that looked like a Hillary get out the vote group.
Anyway, there is a point in the film where the main character says that they have to resort to war and violence because it’s the only language men understand. Ironic, given that it is women who now employ these things in aborting innocent babies.
The Suffragettes were on the right side of history, their 20th and 21st century abortion sisters are not.
I saw this terrible film, and it is a campaign tool for Hillary.
As a so-called second wave feminist in the 1960’s, I was privileged to know quite a few suffragettes who generously offered the benefit of their earlier experiences. One had lived in the White House. Most were against violence and abortion, but two of them admitted privately that they had had abortions, one while a Stanford University co-ed, and another whose husband beat her savagely after learning she was pregnant with his child. Feminists, suffragettes, and others who believe in the equality of men and women have always come in a wide variety of stripes. Like most of us, many of them think and believe one way and sometimes act another way in their personal lives. It is impossible to lump them all together as if they were each of…
“Like most of us, many of them think and believe one way and sometimes act another way in their personal lives. ” = As clearly evidenced by your Johnny On The Spot and so called second wave feminist willingness to recently undermine a faithful Catholic priest….. Especially when previously using so called feminizing wiles in a shabby attempt to try and pre-canonize an unfaithful one.
As also evidenced by another type of feminist named Gloria Steinem, who once said, “A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.” ….but Gloria did eventually marry “A MAN.” So much for NOT living by one’s own famous quote or staunchly defending “all” Church Teaching.
In his excellent recounting of ‘The Great Train Robbery’ author Michael Crichton presents the story of how ‘hetero-patriarchal’ oppression could be applied in manners we seldom acknowledge.
Because Women were the ‘property’ of Husbands, it was taken as Law that the Husband would be punished for the acts of the Wife. A female thief understood this well enough to get married to a fool, and after her being caught red handed – she showed the ‘Coppers’ her wedding band and He Got Arrested.
Dickens also discussed the manner in which the ‘Law’ purported certain presumptions, that reality undermined almost as much as it does ‘same sex parenting’ and other shams.