1
710
711

TIL during World War 1, feminists and suffragettes handed out white feathers to shame men into enlisting in the army and lobbied for instituting an involuntary draft of men, including those who lacked votes due to being too young or not owning property. (en.wikipedia.org)

submitted by afdsfasd

sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]binrobinro 280 ポイント281 ポイント

Easy to do, when they had no chance of being drafted themselves.

[–]iamthewallrus 138 ポイント139 ポイント

This article mentions Emmeline Pankhurst, but it left out the fact that she did in fact advocate for compulsory service of both men and women

[–]DeletedByMods1 74 ポイント75 ポイント

One outlier does not change the character of the entire movement.

[–]atrueamateur 167 ポイント168 ポイント

Actually, the white feather people were the outliers. And the White Feather movement and involuntary draft initiative were started by men. But, of course, it doesn't make as good a story.

[–]Veggiemon 31 ポイント32 ポイント

This is reddit man, you don't make the front page by shit talking men.

[–]AlexMax 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I have no idea who is downvoting you because you're absolutely right.

[–]heracleides 1 ポイント2 ポイント

To be fair, it only shows how the feminist movement is like any other special interest group, infiltrated and corrupt.

[–]rrrx 5 ポイント6 ポイント

Also note that the National Organization for Women has opposed the Selective Service System as an institution since the '80s, but argues that so long as it exists it's sexist and oppressive to require only men to register.

[–]TheCynicalMe 7 ポイント8 ポイント

Which is one of the ridiculous things about feminism. The problems faced by men are spun to seem like problems for women, while the men suffering from them are made out to be oppressors. I took a gender studies class this past semester and damn me if the professor didn't make every second of the 10 total minutes she spent talking about men somehow about women.

[–]Da_Dude_Abides 5 ポイント6 ポイント

NotAllWomen

[–]NikolaiVonToffel 1 ポイント2 ポイント

#YesAllShitlords

(/r/tumblrinaction)

[–]brickmack 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Why would anyone support a draft??

[–]atrueamateur 18 ポイント19 ポイント

If you feel that your country is in danger of being overrun otherwise, you can think it's a good idea.

[–]brickmack 10 ポイント11 ポイント

Shouldn't it be a matter of democracy? I.e., if not enough men are willing to fight for their country then they're voting to allow it to be taken over.

[–]atrueamateur 14 ポイント15 ポイント

Keep in mind the original true democracy, Athens, had a draft. Drafts are not incongruous with democracy at all because they acknowledge the fact that, if war had to be passed by a majority, the democracy would get taken over by a more authoritarian government style.

[–]Sekret_One 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Didn't they also lottery positions of power for appointing people? Democracy was a very different thing than what it's come to be known as.

[–]0Fsgivin 0 ポイント1 ポイント

This is going too go over a lot of peoples heads...

[–]NibbleChompsky 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Sorry, Jesus tells me I shouldn't fight for the kingdoms of this world. Nor should I fight (carnally) for the kingdom of Heaven. So you can think whatever you like, but I must obey God rather than man. Sometimes governments make concessions for Jesus' non-resistant teaching in a time of a draft, but many times they do not.

[–]atrueamateur 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Actually, I don't support a draft (at least not like it exists today). That doesn't mean I can't understand why other people do support the draft.

[–]0Fsgivin 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Ok, so I can come too your home and take all of your stuff right? you wont lay a hand on me, or call others too do so in your name? Maybe ill take your wife or daughter too be my slave...because you surely shouldnt lift a hand to defend your kingdom your home...

And actually you shouldnt, you should place your faith in god and commit no act of violence ever. But I highly doubt you will walk that walk when its your home and family being directly affected.

[–]devilmachineyea 0 ポイント1 ポイント

It's funny that you pretend to actually think that's what they mean.

[–]0Fsgivin 0 ポイント1 ポイント

then please explain it too me?

[–]NibbleChompsky 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Christians differ on issues of self-defense these days, but I tend to agree with the ante-Nicene fathers and Anabaptists when it comes to non-resistance. I believe the Lord's command of non-resistance is absolute, and that it makes perfect sense if your focus is on eternity rather than this life. If my focus was on this life only, then it would make sense to fight.

Getting closer to the topic of Christians and the military, here's an interesting debate between biblical non-resistance and the Just War tradition. It's also important to understand that biblical non-resistance is not the same thing as political pacifism.

[–]Fromanderson 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Please explain Luke22:36 Why would Jesus tell anyone to buy a sword if He didn't expect them to need it?

[–]rinnip 0 ポイント1 ポイント

You mean like during the Vietnam war or WW2, when the commies/nazis were at our doorstep?

[–]Call_him_hero 0 ポイント1 ポイント

What is more detrimental to a state, the loss of it's governing heads or the loss of millions of young adults to a war?

[–]atrueamateur 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Define "our." The White Feather movement was a British thing during WWI, and with all the political muddle at the time, Britain would have been in danger of invasion had they not instituted a draft to get masses of soldiers on the ground. In the case of WWII, Germany was definitely on the doorstep, bombing from Kent to Covent Garden and killing over 40,000 civilians and injuring nearly 140,000 civilians. The only reason the Blitz wasn't worse was because the RAF (the "so few" in the Churchhill quote) was fighting the German bombers during bombing raids.

It's worth noting that while the US really had no business in WWI as WWI was a conglamoration of old European political stuff, they entered the war several years through because the woefully high casualty rates were so bad due to the sides being too even that it was believed that entering the war would overall save lives (and it very likely did) by tipping the balance in favor of one side. In WWII, war was declared on the United States by Japan (by attacking Pearl Harbor) and Germany (by official declaration) before the United States declared war on them. Two powers coming at you from opposite sides of the globe necessitates a large army.

I personally don't support the idea of a draft for either sex today (and in regards to Vietnam, there was no good reason for the United States to get in there), but I can understand why they have existed at various points in the past.

[–]rinnip 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Yes, I was talking about the American draft situation during WW2 and the Vietnam war. Britain had a much different situation in the earlier war.

Germany couldn't conquer Britain over a 30 mile channel. Neither country was a threat to the American mainland, given the size of the oceans and the martial technology available to them at the time. We fought Japan to protect various strategic assets (e.g. The Philippines and Hawaii). From what I read, we fought in Europe because FDR was an Anglophile. While we certainly had economic interests over there, they were not of such value as to be worth putting the entire country on a war footing and enslaving a generation of young men.

Two powers coming at you from opposite sides of the globe necessitates a large army.

Indeed, and if the country was actually threatened, I suspect we would have plenty of volunteers. If they didn't show up, a draft might be warranted. There was a significant American anti war movement before WW2. Many people at the time recognized that, on this side of the Atlantic, the wars were primarily a threat to the economic interests of wealthy Americans, and didn't want to fight their battles. I believe that if a country is truly threatened, they could sell the idea, and would not have to draft anyone.

[–]atrueamateur 0 ポイント1 ポイント

If we hadn't stood up against Japan in the Pacific, we would have lost Hawaii. If we'd lost Hawaii, we would have left ourselves open to attack on the west coast.

[–]Ali_M 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Fairness, for one thing. People from poorer backgrounds are disproportionally represented in the military - if you can't afford higher education, and you don't have a whole lot of other career options, a soldier's salary starts to look a lot more attractive despite the risks. On the other hand, if you could afford to go to a good university then there are probably much more attractive career options available to you. This isn't just about social inequality, though. It warps the political process, since it means that the politicians who decide to send the country to war are less personally invested in the consequences, since their sons and daughters tend not to be the ones actually fighting. In the US, Rep. Charlie Rangel has argued for compulsory National Service on these grounds.

[–]vladinap15 2 ポイント3 ポイント

"compulsory national service" is slavery by another name

[–]Ali_M 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I think that Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Norway, Finland and Denmark (amongst others) would dispute that statement.

[–]vladinap15 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Know another way to describe forced servitude? Slavery.

[–]rinnip 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Many would support a draft, as long as it's other people being drafted.

[–]someguysaid 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Any supporting links please?

[–]Keoni95 13 ポイント14 ポイント

Emmeline Pankhurst was the very reason why suffragettes joined the white feather movement in the first place. From the fifth source:

In order to analyze “The Order of the White Feather,” all the factors that influenced it must be taken into account. This recruitment phenomenon must be interpreted as the resulting combination of the two most emotionally charged influences of the day. It might be considered the “mutant” offspring of the unlikely marriage which took place between the radical pro-suffrage and conservative pro-war movements. The “sex war” psyche had not been diminished by the onset of war with Germany. The energy which had previously been exerted in the suffragist “sex war” was not redirected to the recruitment effort of wartime Britain -- the energy of the two movements were fused to create a new nationalistic feminism. When the Pankhursts added their seal of approval to the sentiment and the tactic of “feathering” by both backing and participating in the effort, suffragists all over the country were encouraged to conduct a righteous assault on civilian men without the fear of recrimination from either the establishment or the suffrage elite. Whether Admiral Charles Fitzgerald’s “White Feather Brigade” and Emmeline Pankhurst’s “white feather” recruitment tactics were organizationally tied is irrelevant -- the psychological motivation of all “White Feather Girls” was unequivocally tied to that of the suffragists. The objective was to show men in the worst possible light, and by comparison, illustrate the patriotic quintessence and moral superiority of British womanhood.

[–]wtskm 6 ポイント7 ポイント

The "entire movement" in question was started by an admiral, not a feminist

[–]iamthewallrus 7 ポイント8 ポイント

Outlier? The article listed her as a prominent feminist of the time who joined the movement, which was started by the government.

[–]yottskry 35 ポイント36 ポイント

Outlier does not mean she's not prominent, it means her opinion is different from the consensus.

[–]iamthewallrus 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Different from the consensus of feminists and suffragettes? If so, I'd like a source

[–]ewar-woowar -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

One of the most central figures of the movement an outlier?

[–]binrobinro 2 ポイント3 ポイント

I stand corrected.

[–]InsanityWolfie 7 ポイント8 ポイント

You do not. There was one who wanted both. However, it was not the general consensus of the feminists at the time.

[–]binrobinro 25 ポイント26 ポイント

I stand uncorrected, then.

[–]redsessed 2 ポイント3 ポイント

How do you know the general consensus of feminists at the time?

[–]Psycho_Delic 8 ポイント9 ポイント

History books?

[–]Thiazole 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Books? Pah, I hear females write books. Aint no me reading no paperbound period babble!

[–]redsessed 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I've never seen a history book on the history of feminism and the draft- was this in your school curriculum?

[–]InsanityWolfie -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

After considering the fact that that woman was seemingly the only one advocating military service for women AND men, whilst almost all others of note only advocated a draft for men, I have arrived at the conclusion that that one woman did not share the average feminist mindset of the time.

Edit: I see the brigades have arrived

[–]Marsdreamer 8 ポイント9 ポイント

You've got statistically significant data on women's opinion of compulsory military service circa 1910 on hand, do you?

[–]InsanityWolfie -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Yes, actually. Its right there in the link, which, if you didnt, ought to have clicked before coming into the comment section. Albeit not statistically significant, I see no groups aside from that solitart woman lobbying for the compulsory military service of women. Only men. And youve also committed a straw man fallacy, misrepresenting my argument to better suit your counter argument. I did not suggest that compulsory mens military service was a popular idea amongst the population. However, amongst feminist lobbyists of the time, it was. As is implied, if not stated, in the article.

[–]Marsdreamer 6 ポイント7 ポイント

The article says nothing of whether or not the feminists at the time supported compulsory service for Women as well as men. It only states that prominent leaders (and by prominent, one woman and her Daughter whom did support the draft for women).

While it is probable that many women did not support a gender indiscriminate draft, we can't know because we have no hard numbers. It also seems like the entire "White Feather Brigade" was essentially a move by the military to increase recruitment turnout.

[–]InsanityWolfie 5 ポイント6 ポイント

I see your point, and Im glad we have had this conversation so civilly.

[–]Veggiemon 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I don't think asking for a citation is "committing a straw man fallacy". I swear redditors throw around a lot of terms they don't understand but when I see someone talk about a logical fallacy they are wrong 90% of the time.

[–]InsanityWolfie 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Being as he asked me to provide a citation for an argument I never made, his counter argument was misrepresenting my initial argument. If he had asked for citation for my argument that advocation for the mandatory military of women was not popular amongst feminist lobbyists of the time period, it would have been bueno. However, he misrepresented my argument by suggesting that I had said that mandatory military service for women was not popular amongst women of the time period, which is much harder to substatiate, and which I hadnt attempted to argue for.

[–]redsessed 0 ポイント1 ポイント

1 woman as per reddit.....

[–]Kirbyoto 0 ポイント1 ポイント

almost all others of note only advocated a draft for men

Nice try.

[–]InsanityWolfie 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Have you a counter argument, or are you just looking for things to post out of context on your tumblr blog?

[–]Cakemiddleton -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

It's like they don't even consider men to be humans and that they would actually be afraid to go die. Fucking assholes

[–]mabelleamie 17 ポイント18 ポイント

This TIL has been debunked in /r/badhistory.

http://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/1zynqo/on_the_role_of_women_in_world_war_one_or_white/

[–]Terraneaux 0 ポイント1 ポイント

That doesn't debunk it at all!

[–]wtskm 7 ポイント8 ポイント

Did you even click the link?

In August 1914, at the start of the First World War, Admiral Charles Fitzgerald founded the Order of the White Feather with support from the prominent author Mrs Humphrey Ward.

Fuck those men, it's as if they don't even consider men human...

[–]ewar-woowar 6 ポイント7 ポイント

Which indeed seemed to be the attitude of British command back then

[–]heracleides -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

It may have been thought up by the military but it was executed by the feminist movement. Both of which didn't seem to find men to be human and both of whom were working to expand the war machine. Did you read past the first line?

[–]wtskm -1 ポイント0 ポイント

I did read past the first line, you didn't. The campaign was executed by the British public, which yes included feminists, but was by no means dominated by them.

There is no evidence at all to suggest the mainstream feminist movement at any stage "didn't seem to find men to be human".

[–]heracleides -1 ポイント0 ポイント

So you're saying there is a high command of feminists who had no part in this and are the real feminists and the average feminist isn't a feminist?

Define mainstream feminism for me. Can you please include the infallible high command of feminists in your description?

[–]wtskm -1 ポイント0 ポイント

What I'm saying is that handing someone a white feather doesn't indicate they "didn't seem to find men to be human".

Similarly, the soldiers who did volunteer, and encouraged their friends and colleagues to do likewise, were unlikey to think of themselves as some sort of sub-human caste.

[–]heracleides 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Go back and re-read the post and thread.

[–]wtskm -1 ポイント0 ポイント

I'll save time and just re-read you posts

It may have been thought up by the military

True

it was executed by the feminist movement.

False. Was executed by a far broader group of people.

Both of which didn't seem to find men to be human

False, no evidence of this at all

and both of whom were working to expand the war machine.

True

Did you read past the first line?

Yes

So you're saying there is a high command of feminists

I said no such thing, you're a fucking nutter if you believe this exists

who had no part in this

Again not what I said. Feminists were part of White Feather, White Feather(and the larger pro-war movement) was not dominated by feminist. You've conflated the two.

are the real feminists and the average feminist isn't a feminist? Can you please include the infallible high command of feminists in your description?

Back to your insane ranting

[–]purpledomino 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Admiral Charles Fitzgerald founded the Order of the White Feather

[–]totes_meta_bot [score hidden]

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote or comment. Questions? Abuse? Message me here.

[–]ewar-woowar -1 ポイント0 ポイント

But why arnt they allowed into the draft? Why should anyone be drafted at all? That would be a great equality, nobody has to fight if they don't want to.

[–]SlamBulkhead 3 ポイント4 ポイント

I don't really support a draft, but not knowing a shit ton of military history means I can't really say exactly why. I just don't really like the idea.

However, there have been several motions to introduce a universal draft, in the US at least. All have been unsuccessful. And it's not feminists doing it, it's the mostly male lawmakers. It was also the mostly male lawmakers who until only very recently decided that it was acceptable for women to serve in a combat area (which they should have been able to do from the beginning, but again, our mostly make lawmakers thought women would be distracting).

So yes, there were/are some outlying feminists who did this. But you have to acknowledge that a lot of this stuff is propagated by other men.

[–]ewar-woowar 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Indeed, I've heard this come up with the kind of feminists you inevitably hang out with at uni. And they said they aren't for more men serving instead of them but for removing the idea that men need to always be strong protectors and that women are inherently frail. What they said was kind of attitude that leads to this sort of thing.

[–]SlamBulkhead 1 ポイント2 ポイント

I think so too. I'm not saying that if I were drafted I'd be filled with pride and ride over there on a firework with a flag for a cape, but I'd accept it and do my duty. And the fact that they thought men think women would be a distraction in a field of combat reflects more on the attitude of the men and not on the ability of the women.

[–]Oznog99 -5 ポイント-4 ポイント

Yeah, I'm baffled how this is consistent with their cause.

[–]Joliet_Jake_Blues -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

OP is from the red pill, and is manufacturing hatred.

[–]aquaticbub -1 ポイント0 ポイント

DAT AD HOMINEM BRO WHATS UP?