Ya know, guys, I think we've been over the museum boats more than enough times.
1850s First-wave Women's Rights are probably more worth discussing. It's probably THE thing on Californian minds after Slavery.
Note I call them WRAs because Suffragettes and Prohibitionists were somewhat later and are generally labelled First-Wave Feminists. These first Women's Rights Activists were looking for more basic recognition and protections than that.
I think I already mentioned here that sometime in the 1860s-1880s period, a Tennessee court ruled married women did not have souls independent of their husbands. I suppose even if God struck them down for that ruling in this timeline, they'd just blame it on California cause California can do sudden explosions from a clear sky
Amusingly, the more I do research for my own alternate history, centered on a matrilineal dynasty that can be said to be full of empowered women, the more problems I have with third-wave and fourth-wave Feminism. Contrast the modern "Patriarchy" narrative with the possible eventual line in my story of "
by hand and sword, by fire and steel, by mount and blade, we showed the world what we are capable of!" and you get why (although NONE of those things named on that list are what you would first think of, except the hand).
Hell, my research even damaged my image of First-Wave Feminism!
Terrorist bombings and arsons, then giving men white feathers for cowardice while screaming you want the vote... while the conscripts of the Great War are dying vote-less in the trenches? Yikes!
...Given those later examples of violence, and the earlier examples of the Saloon Axewoman (forgot her name and can't be bothered to look her up at present) and other violent advocates for women's rights, do you reckon some Californians would want to supply early Women's Rights Activists with weapons and technology?
Because while some of their violent means set their cause back (i.e. bombings and arson), by God/ROB/ASB were they (and Second-Wave Feminists) brave!
Except no, that's not what in the actual fuck she was talking about. She was referring to the deplorable culture and social safety nets of the US. AKA: The dead are dead. Those who survive get fucked, ever harder and longer because of the way that Americans punish the poor for their crime of being poor and american.
Sigh, let me highlight some keywords to improve your comprehension: "Women have ALWAYS been THE primary victims of war..."
ALWAYS: i.e. since there have been wars, and even today
THE primary victims: All other groups are secondary.
In other words, the men dying out there are suffering less than the women surviving them.
The second I heard she had said that once I HATED her, because it was around the time I learnt Sati, as portrayed in
Around the World in 80 Days, was actually a serious thing in India in the past, and it was aimed at exactly that BOGUS idea that
living on without your male relatives was more horrible than getting burnt to death alive!
Either that or she was saying that men
physically being killed are less important than women's
feelings. Which is far beyond my tolerance limits for sexism, sorry.
If she wasn't being sexist, then she should not have used such absolutist language. Even "Since time immemorial, women have been primary victims of war." would be acceptable. A professional politician does not use such absolute terms as ALWAYS and THE unless she actually has conviction involved... or deep-seated bias.
