Qasim Rashid, Esq.Mar 1, 2023
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
Show threadSnerk RabbledauberMar 1, 2023

@QasimRashid

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

Show threadQasim 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
Show threadSnerk RabbledauberMar 1, 2023

@QasimRashid

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?

Show threadQasim 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.
Show threadSnerk RabbledauberMar 1, 2023

@QasimRashid

Well now I know your level of journalistic integrity.

Show threadQasim Rashid, Esq.Mar 1, 2023
@SnerkRabbledauber Resorting to insults because you refuse to understand how systemic discrimination works is a classy move.
Show threadSnerk RabbledauberMar 1, 2023

@QasimRashid

What insult?

Show threadDB SchweinMar 2, 2023

@QasimRashid

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.

Show threadSnerk RabbledauberMay 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?

Show threadDB SchweinMay 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.

Show threadSnerk RabbledauberMay 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.

+

Show threadSnerk Rabbledauber

@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.

May 24, 2023 at 2:13pmWeb