The first woman to be elected as an MP to the British Parliament and also one of the first women to hold a cabinet position in Europe.
And yet we are told literally nothing about her. Which is all the more surprising given the recent trend of championing prominent historical roles of women.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/constance-markievicz-the-making-of-a-rebel-countess/
We're by far not at equal rights yet, which is the reason why in a largely male dominated world the propaganda highligts women who have any role in anything, just to make it look as if women had a larger part than they actually have.
But apparently this highlighting is restricted to women who aren't getting in the way of the ongoing enrichment of the already rich, "rebels" who might want to do something against that are largely ignored in the media.
I was more thinking the fact that she was an Irish rebel and part of the independence movement would keep her out of British school books, even although teaching about women's rights movements and the suffragettes - at the same time period - very much is.
It's a shame because even although she came from a very much privileged position herself, she had quite a life in the end.
And it's funny that Nancy Astor is celebrated instead despite being a renowned anti-Semite and appeasist to Hitler!
Didn't know who Nancy Astor was, but her getting into the history books doesn't surprise me either.
shareTheresa May unveiled a statue to her they'd made a few years ago. I don't recall anything before that either tbh, although I'm sure she must have been mentioned as a footnote to the suffragettes when I was at school - Although, I was probably staring absently out the window at the time!
It is funny though that an American antisemitic, nazi sympather is the one who's place in history is celebrated, whilst the actual English born first elected woman MP is shoved to the sidelines...
Have a look around in this forum here, an estimated 90% of all postings come from the far right.
In reality they aren't the majority, but they are the loudest, giving the impression they were more than they are, the media reflects that and since this has been going on since forever it has made it into the history books as well.
Just look at what that leads to.
The far right is deeply religious, believing in an "all good" god, but when a female bishop asks them to show mercy to the poor and to minorities, they celebrate that bishop getting bashed.
Funnily enough, I'm kind of ambivalent on that religious woman / homosexuals rights business.
Don't get me wrong - I'm massively anti religion, have no beliefs and think its all a load of nonsense.
But having said that (and still even in saying this, there is so much nonsense, especially in the old testament that I doubt anyone really believes in it) I do think there is stuff in these books basically saying "Women, know your place!". And I guess the same goes for homosexuality.
So I have this weird mindset that I actually have more respect for morons who want to believe what's clearly rubbish hook line and sinker rather than morons who want to believe in something but also want to pick and choose what bits they really meant and which bits were just to be excluded as society / understand evolved...
But just to be clear - I think they're all morons! π
Of course there's an overload of anti women, anti homosexual, racist, etc. stuff in the holy books, but there are quite a few problems with that.
Historically religion had the authoritarian power to dictate to the people what they have to do and even what they have to think, which gave religious organisations a good income from a society that had 90+% believers.
Nowadays those times are over, religious organisations are losing members ever faster and the income of those organisations is shrinking rapidly, organisations like the catholic church can already predict the day when their income will no longer be enough to maintain the organisation.
This leads to several consequences.
On the one had the organisations are opening up to minorities, dropping their former homophobic teachings, welcoming about anybody, because any paying member they can keep for a bit longer means the survivial of the organisation for a bit longer.
On the other hand this divides believers into several subgroups, from those who want to insist the holy book shall be literally true and the old ways the only right ways, up to the ones who cherry pick their holy book and believe only the parts that match their own internal morality.
That's why we now see so many believers making statements like they do believe in their god and their holy book, but they no longer agree with their religious organisations, people simply don't understand that insisting on their old ways will lead organisations straight into bankruptcy.
I think there's still money to be made both ways.
One example is FootOfDavros Jnr's pal from school. Their dad was a minister but the church was about to do something - women priests maybe, gays allowed? can't remember - anyway a sizeable chunk of the congregation (probably the older folks) were with him, so he got a mass of denotations, even including land and building I think, so went off and formed one of those subdivisions!
I guess in time that sort of thing will drop off though and it will become "Hey, come along and celebrate with us your religion whatever way you want!"...
And actually, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I don't believe but I'm not against or prejudice against those who do (asides calling them morons above π).
I have a slightly different view on religion.
For me the quiet and peaceful majority builds the foundation the extremists rest on.
I know one cannot and should not restrict religious freedom, but I strongly feel there should be a way to keep the extremism out, where a way stricter separation of church and state than there is today would be a step in the right direction.
For me the quiet and peaceful majority builds the foundation the extremists rest on.
No need wiping anything out, religion is in demise on it's own.
Here in western Europe we're at an average of over 50% atheists by now and the young generation of the 15-25 year olds has over 90% atheists, meaning by the time the old generation dies out, some time around 2100, western Europe will have over 90% atheists.
The US is roughly 35 years behind, but will get there as well.
Rumors have it, they will soon have to put religious people on the red list of endangered species.
What rights are not equal for women?
Our do you mean those repressive third world countries?