Mastodawn

Stefanie Summers Mar 1, 2023

Qasim Rashid, Esq.

It's Women's History Month. Here's the world men have forced on women:
1848: Married women's property act passed
1920: Beating women criminalized
1921: White women get voting rights—Asian women (1952), Native women (1962), Black women (1965), Hispanic women (1975)
1970: No fault divorce legalized
1974: Equal credit opportunity act let women have independent credit
1981: First women on SCOTUS
1993: Marital rape criminalized
2022: Roe v Wade overturned
2023: ERA still not law
Men—we must do better

Snerk Rabbledauber Mar 1, 2023

Hispanic women (1975) is not correct. Hispanic women would have been covered by the 1965 act would they not?

Qasim Rashid, Esq.Mar 1, 2023

@SnerkRabbledauber It is correct. Latino/Hispanic women had to wait until 1975 to get full voting rights. A law that claims to allow voting but does not give actual access to voting, does not in fact allow voting. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/latinos-1965-voting-rights-act-impact-came-decade-later-n404936

For Latinos, 1965 Voting Rights Act Impact Came A Decade Later

Thursday marks the 50th anniversary of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, but for Latinos what is more significant is the extension signed 10 years later.

NBC News

Snerk Rabbledauber Mar 1, 2023

The '75 amendment was important, but not the same as giving Hispanic Women as a group the right to vote. They already had that. If you change it to "language minorities" it would be accurate. But otherwise it would only be accurate if no Hispanic Women spoke English in 1975, which is nonsense.

Why allow people to discard your excellent point like this?

Qasim Rashid, Esq.Mar 1, 2023

@SnerkRabbledauber People aren't discarding my excellent point. You are, because you're pretending a right that is granted on paper is magically granted in real life too. You're wrong. Be well. Peace.

Snerk Rabbledauber Mar 1, 2023

Well now I know your level of journalistic integrity.

Qasim Rashid, Esq.Mar 1, 2023

@SnerkRabbledauber Resorting to insults because you refuse to understand how systemic discrimination works is a classy move.

Snerk Rabbledauber Mar 1, 2023

What insult?

DB Schwein Mar 2, 2023

You questioned their journalistic integrity - that's an insult, but you knew that.

It's not a right until *everybody* in that group has *equal* access.

Snerk Rabbledauber May 24, 2023

@deirdrebeth @QasimRashid

"It's not a right until *everybody* in that group has *equal* access."

So by your definition no humans have ever had the right to vote, because there have always been some humans that did not have it?

DB Schwein May 24, 2023

@SnerkRabbledauber @QasimRashid
No.
*US Citizens* have not all had the equal right to vote, because only a subset have had the right.

Not sure how much more simply it can be written.

Snerk Rabbledauber May 24, 2023

@deirdrebeth @QasimRashid

What you say is true because you add in the critical modifier 'all' and more accurately define the group. So that is how you write it more simply. By being accurate.

I don't have access to the original post, but as I remember he said that women didn't get the right to vote until 1965 knowing most readers will read that as 'all women' when he knew full well it meant 'some women'. That is a deceptive practice for a journalist.

+

Snerk Rabbledauber May 24, 2023

@deirdrebeth @QasimRashid

If what the OP did is valid, then it is also valid to say that people got the right to vote in 1965. It is also valid to say that US citizens don't have the right to vote today. It might be technically correct but it is misleading. It is quite simply manipulative bad journalism.

Especially since you don't have to use subterfuge to make the point that women's rights have been too long in coming and are still not equal.

DB Schwein May 24, 2023

@SnerkRabbledauber @QasimRashid
Ah, so you're arguing for your misreading of the original post. It did not say that, it was specific. You had a knee jerk reaction, and now can't admit you might have been wrong.
Understood.

cui bono, baby.May 23, 2023

@SnerkRabbledauber @QasimRashid
And now we know your level of intellectual dishonesty.

pocket full of hawthornes 💦Mar 1, 2023

@QasimRashid 1920 is so shamefully recent. 1993 moreso.

SamHughes Mar 1, 2023

@QasimRashid I have always said, let the women have a shot at ruling the world to see if they could do a better job then men. It seems men just can't do much of anything right these days, except get drunk and shoot up the joint.

Tim Mills Mar 1, 2023

@QasimRashid Yes we must!

Catherine is not complacent Mar 2, 2023

@QasimRashid hmmm… women are now responsible for deadbeat husbands debts, women are still beaten, women make less money, marital rape is never prosecuted, and Roevs Wade is history.
Ain’t seen much change from where I’m sitting .

Badwolf303 Mar 2, 2023

@CatDragon @QasimRashid Sounds like the problem is men don’t know how to behave.

Catherine is not complacent Mar 2, 2023

@marcibadwolf303 @QasimRashid ayhuh. Because there aren’t consequences when they don’t.

Badwolf303 Mar 2, 2023

@CatDragon @QasimRashid

Exactly

Heather Mar 2, 2023

@QasimRashid by 'world' I assume you mean 'USA'?

Pete Apr 9, 2023

@jupitersigh @QasimRashid

I had the same thought.

Flatbush Gardener 🌈Mar 2, 2023

@QasimRashid
My husband remembers his mother trying to get a credit card in 1971 and being told her husband had to sign.

Tiny Frightening Woman Mar 2, 2023

@QasimRashid Sexual harassment in the workplace was ignored (legally) until the mid 1970s

HLGEM Mar 5, 2023

@baba_lilith @QasimRashid LOL it was ignored long past that. It wasn't even identified as an issue most places until the tailhook scandal in 1991. And frankly I still saw it at times through my entire career (I retired in 2018).

Tiny Frightening Woman Mar 5, 2023

@HLGEM That's why I said "legally". There were no laws against it until the mid 70s. His thread was about legislation, not if things still happened. Constantly, with rare repercussions.

Miriam Mar 5, 2023

@QasimRashid A LOT BETTER

Gurtbeef Robe Mar 8, 2023

@QasimRashid @DemocracyMattersALot question: what does no fault divorce have to do with this topic?