Arguably, it's at least in large part the efforts of socialists, communists, and radical feminists that made some of these possible. But decades of vilification in the USA have made them virtually invisible to the general population.
Nothing like propaganda to make people to go against their best interests. I keep having to remember even decades is well after I was born, I can't imagine having the ideals of conservatives. As long as it's functional but there's no cost to not suppressing others, well there may be at some point when we're all on a scorching planet and have to make real sacrifices. Of course the old billionaires will be dead for the rest to deal with the fallout.... hopefully figuratively and not actually like the game.
You're just being pedantic. In mainstream US terminology "Liberal" means left and "Conservative" means right. If you start using terminology beyond that the target audience isn't going to know what you're talking about, and you'll lose them before you even have a chance to make your point.
A better historical note would be to say .... to have a bank account
I think up until the 50s women couldn't have a bank account in their name, without their husband signing for them or something. Up until then, women couldn't have any money in their name in a recognized bank.
For common women that is ... if you were the ultra wealthy, you could afford to skirt around banking rules ... but as a common woman with a bit of money, you couldn't have a regular bank account of your own.
No it doesn't. Just because they might end up voting for the same party (because there are only two fucking choices) does not make them the same at all.
Their explanation is a bit reductive, but they are attempting to correctly point out that liberalism is the hegemonic ideology of the US state. Republicans and Democrats have historically always subscribed to liberalism, as in a social and political philosophy centered on individualism and capitalism as its primary organising principles. The current success of fascist rhetoric in the US is another example of how liberalism and fascism do not have fundamentally conflicting interests as both depend on the formal exploitation of devalued groups to the benefit of the hierarchy.
Liberals did not give anyone rights, they were forced to find new ways to exploit groups when legal discrimination became untenable in the face of movements that managed to challenge their system. Think prison industrial complex in response to the Civil Rights era and Black Liberation militant groups.
Think prison industrial complex in response to the Civil Rights era and Black Liberation militant groups.
Yes, and NAFTA / off-shoring in response to worker power, stagnant wages in response to women in the workplace, forcing social media to submit to spying in response to organization efforts, etc.
Neoliberalism -- the dominance of free-trade rhetoric, dependency on consumer credit and corporate welfare for growth, and diminished remuneration of labourers -- is more difficult to attribute as a response to any one factor in social or political change in the late twentieth century, though the persistence of union power and women's financial independence are certainly factors. Decentralization and deindustrialization in strong union industries had already been official state policy as early as the late 1940s, as well as state influence over media production and communications technology.
The Prison Industrial Complex is much more of a direct response as we see it emerge during the popular Civil Rights Era of the twentieth century with explicit use of the War on Drugs to target black populations. Racist Politicization of drugs was already deployed in the past, but this systemization into forced labour and targeted community oppression was a new way to specifically handle effective Black Liberation movements in the US.
Unless you are saying the U.S. had a socialist majority in government when each of these rights/principles became allowed... It was the liberals you speak of that voted them in. Are we going to say Woodrow Wilson had a socialist administration that voted for Women's Suffrage?
The meme says “liberalism is the reason”, it doesn’t say “liberals voted these in”. You can be a liberal and lean towards progressivism, but that stil doesn’t make these things part of liberalism, it’s still progressivism.
Liberal doesn't mean the same thing here as it does elsewhere, it's a dumb thing to argue over. Liberal has no ties to who owns the means of production in the U.S.
I see no one complaining about how the paints were sourced in liberal arts. Words have different meanings in different contexts.
In this context it's people trying to claim people sound uneducated while really coming across uneducated. If you say different then never say that culture means anything nor exists when someone tramples someone else's.
A man gave women the right to fight rather than folks fighting for social progress is the liberal narrative we all grew up with. I mean you can hear the same thing on NPR when they talk about the history of Labor Day.
Progressive movements caused social change. Through political pressure. It wasn't given to us by liberals.
Yeah, sometimes it is just bargaining chips. Otherwise they have to classify the Richard Nixon administration as being progressive for voting to give women the right to open credit accounts without a male co-signer.
New Zealand, Finland and the USSR were the first to make that a reality. Spearheaded by trade union movements and communists.
Work
The Soviet Union was the first country to establish legal equality in pay and employment for women, and then followed by the PRC and the wide amount of time of socdem movement in the nordic countries.
File for divorce
France was the first, with the french revolution. Then came the Soviet Union and after it the PRC.
Buy a credit card
To be honest this is absurd, but indeed the US was the first as far as I can remember. Having the right to drown in debt is good i guess.
Buy a home or a car
US and UK did indeed pioneer that, but it was with more focus on married women. Actual acts focused just on women were implemented by the Soviet Union with collective property and gender equality laws.
Driver's license
There were little to no formal bans for that, social stigma was and is real though. Still an issue.
Pregnant and not get fired
USSR pioneered that in 1918, with labor codes protecting working mothers. Followed by the nordic socdem movement and the US only in the 1978
Husband can go to jail for beating you
USSR again, was the first to criminalize domestic battery in 1918. Although enforced unevenly it was legally punishable. Western Europe and the Northern America started it in 1970s with implementation continued to 1990s.
Many of the achievements listed are not of liberalism or neoliberalism, they were achievements of activists and unions working in a group to protect their collective interests. In many of the cases it was the Soviet Union with the revolution spearheading these rights, because the revolution itself was started by working class women. The nordics followed with their own social democrat feminist movement. In many things the PRC came before the neoliberal states in achievements of women's rights, and that is a state that was ravaged by war and imperialism for years.
Liberalism gave little to nothing, it maintained the hierarchies, and silenced the movement. Both democrats and republicans both do not care about women's rights. They are both parties of the same right wing on the fascist eagle.
So this is almost definitely referring to social liberalism, not economic/classical liberalism which is an entirely different thing. Some ideas of social liberalism overlap with progressivism and even socialism.
The US happens to have two parties that are liberals - but it's two different varieties of liberalism. Republicans are classical liberals whereas democrats for the most part are social liberals
The problem is that a significant portion of MAGA don't actually want most of those things.
They feel that freedoms are responsibilities. They don't want to think about who they should vote for, or have to have a job or think about credit cards and budgets and bank accounts. And they're not worried about needing a divorce or their husband beating them because they figure "Well I married a good Christian man, that will never be a problem for me."
They don't care and take everything for granted, that's what stupid people do.
Also they think 5 min in advance.
See the people who voted for Trump and then were shocked that they or their relatives get deported.
Likewise here: "the bad stuff is for other people and not me“ or some version of that.
I mean...if you want to be pedantic, and I always do, every word is made-up. That's how words work. Don't have a word for something? Make it up from nothing, or by smashing two or more words together (lookin at you my German fam 😘👉) or just borrow a word from a different language. That's literally just how words work. It's all made up.
Im a left wing socialist, living in Scotland. From my point of view, American liberals are closer to nazis than they are to me.
I live in a country that has free healthcare, free education. That took the two party system, and told it to take a fucking walk. And we did all this, while under the rule of parliament in England. Are we perfect? Not even close. Even the SNP, the party most directly responsible for all the good shit we have today, is invested with corruption.
But if youre an American, and youre waxing lyrical about how amazing the Dems are or about how amazing it is being a "liberal". Im sorry, but youre right wing and youre hated outside of the US by people who are actually left wing. I mean, youre left wing party is to the right of the fucking tories in the UK. And tories are, in no uncertain terms, massive fucking cunts.
Something to think about the next time you are looking at the Dems to be your heroes...
Well that’s excellent news for Scotland, and well done. The US has a little ways to go with that one.
One of the things that kibbles my bits is that people not well versed in USA look at the turd circus we’ve managed to inflict on everyone and think it’s some agreed-upon settled system. It is absolutely not agreed-upon other than we have to do something today so this is what we’re doing.
Here’s a little flava of what it’s like to support the only national party with elected officials who support healthcare for all, living wage, public transportation, free education, and scientifically backed public health and environmental initiatives: our party “is to the right of the fucking tories in the UK. And tories are, in no uncertain terms, massive fucking cunts. Something to think about the next time you are looking at the Dems to be your heroes...”
That’s what it’s like. So either people who state right up front that they don’t live here and don’t know what it’s like are correct that the Democrats are “to the right of the Tories” and “closer to nazis than [the left]” - OR - They’re wrong.
My position is the latter. But that’s different from “waxing lyrical about how amazing the Dems are”. No no. Nay nay. Dems are extremely critical of the Democratic party for all the reasons you’d expect and some you wouldn’t.
But Lemmy doesn’t need any help shitting on the Democrats, do they? No. Because most of them vote Democrat. They want the national party to do All The Things, All The Time and will never be happy with it except in little pocket of time. That’s what it’s like.
The thing is, dems are the only other party choice.
And while dem leadership is absolutely awful, there are progressives in the Democratic party. Like actual socdems and demsocs. The issue is nobody votes in primaries.
Just dig a little. The Democrats do this every single election. There’s no better options on the ballot, precisely because they spend a ton of time and money to keep it that way.
“I see no good reason for Mr. West to be kept off the ballot or Pennsylvanians otherwise prevented from voting for him,” the lawyer, Matt Haverstick, said in an interview. Haverstick declined to say who hired him or why.
Jill Stein was your socialist candidate? The party that very specifically, under the direction of russia, runs in order to help trump win? The party that filed late and incompletely?
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — The Green Party will remain an official party in North Carolina, able to field candidates statewide through the 2028 elections, even though their 2024 nominees for governor and president failed to get the votes required by state law.
The Republican-led State Board of Elections voted 3-2 on Thursday to continue recognizing the North Carolina Green Party, potentially affecting close contests for president, U.S. Senate and governor or other statewide and local offices.
I hope that’s not too complex for everyone to grok as to what’s going on there.
And it’s funny you say they “always” do that because they didn’t used to do that. Until republiQan ratfuckers like Roger Stone realized they just needed to siphon off 2% more of votes and the GOP would win everytime.
This isn’t the DNC gatekeeping elections, this is an offensive line that is gatekeeping the quarterback. Stunt candidates are a tool the GOP uses all the time - ask them what Ross Perot taught them. Or John Anderson. Scant, last-minute candidates who may or may not know who’s backing them are not serious political entities on a national stage.
Jill Stein? Really? Are we gonna do that one again?
You know, the real progressives are fucked, mate. Bernie was the key. The one chance to drag the U.S. into the new millennium with a bit of decency, fairness, and genuine progress. The kind of shift that could’ve reset the tone for an entire generation. But it was all scuppered, not by the right, not by the voters, but by the same gaggle of corrupt party leaders and donors so many still put their faith in today.
The Democratic establishment couldn’t stomach the idea of someone who didn’t owe them. Twice they closed ranks to stop him, all while pretending it was about “electability.” They said he couldn’t win, then worked behind the scenes to make sure he never got the chance. The DNC changed debate rules mid-campaign, the media ran coordinated hit pieces about his “temperament” and “supporters,” and everyone from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama made calls to make sure endorsements went to the “safe” choice. And for what? So they could put up a candidate who barely inspired his own party to show up at the polls?
Even now, the same pattern plays out. Last year, Nancy Pelosi made sure AOC didn’t get a committee seat that could have set her up for a presidential run in 2028. Instead of giving a 35-year-old woman in her prime the chance to build real experience and influence, the seat went to a 75-year-old man dying of cancer. Because, in their eyes, loyalty to the machine matters more than the future of the movement. And even after the guy died 4 months later, they still wont allow her get the seat.
And it’s not just AOC. Look at what they did to Nina Turner, Cori Bush, Ilhan Omar — anyone who dares to challenge corporate donors or question U.S. foreign policy gets smeared, sidelined, or primaried by DNC-backed “moderates.” The second you talk about universal healthcare, higher taxes on billionaires, or ending endless wars, you’re branded “unelectable.” Yet somehow, it’s always the moderates who lose the winnable races.
You can see this play out at every level of government. look at the New York mayoral race. The establishment had the chance to back real progressives like Maya Wiley or Dianne Morales, people who actually wanted to tackle policing, housing, and inequality at the root. But instead, they rallied behind Eric Adams. A former cop, drenched in real estate money, who branded himself as “working class” while taking donations from every developer in the city. The media treated him like the grown-up in the room, the DNC donors opened their wallets, and the result was inevitable. The city that gave the world Occupy Wall Street ended up with a mayor who governs like Bloomberg with a badge. That’s not progress. That’s regression dressed in identity politics.
And look at what’s happening with Zohran Mamdani. Here’s a guy who’s actually walking the talk, pushing for housing as a human right, calling out landlords and real estate money in politics, standing with tenants instead of developers. You’d think the party would hold him up as the future. A young, articulate, principled leader who speaks to working-class people and immigrants alike. But no. The establishment treats him like a nuisance. They quietly back primary challengers against him, strip funding from his allies, and pretend he’s “too radical” for a state drowning in rent debt and corporate greed. That tells you everything you need to know. In their eyes, the problem isn’t corruption. It’s anyone who dares to point it out.
The truth is, the party doesn’t want progress, it wants control. It’s built to absorb progressive energy, milk it for enthusiasm and votes, then smother it before it threatens the donor class. Bernie showed what was possible. Millions of people, young and old, left and right wing, saw a vision of America that wasn’t built on cynicism or corporate handshakes. And the establishment made damn sure it never got close again.
Because if people like AOC, Bernie, or Turner ever actually got power, the kind of power to change how the system works, it wouldn’t just rattle the right. It’d end the cosy little club at the top of the left too. And they’d rather burn the whole thing down than let that happen.
But it was all scuppered, . . . by the same gaggle of corrupt party leaders and donors so many still put their faith in today.
No they don’t. It’s arguable they ever did. What we do is support our candidate (Bernie, in my case) and then when he doesn’t win, we support the next one down. No faith involved.
The Democratic establishment couldn’t stomach the idea of someone who didn’t owe them.
You’re making that up, but it sounds believable. Oh, you’ve got names, quotes, dates? Well in that case yeah [that person]’s a real asshole and we want them to die. But you don’t, do you. Who said “we can’t stomach the idea of [supporting] someone who doesn’t owe us”? Hm? No one. You’re writing your own little political thriller there.
Even now, the same pattern plays out. Last year, Nancy Pelosi made sure AOC didn’t get a committee seat that could have set her up for a presidential run in 2028.
So true, and - couple of things: 1) that was extreme bullshit and we’re all on board with kicking Nancy to the curb for it. Is Ken Martin going to go on the Sunday talk shows and say that? No. That’s not how we do it because we’re a real party of actual humans. So you won’t get your proof other than what an actual Democrat actually living the US who actually votes is telling you. 2) That may be some sort of recognized path in the UK to run for PM, but here it is not - nothing prevents AOC from running except the age limitation.
The second you talk about universal healthcare, higher taxes on billionaires, or ending endless wars, you’re branded “unelectable.” Yet somehow, it’s always the moderates who lose the winnable races.
Well no, but also yes the Democratic consultants (whom AOC famously elected to not employ) are all about losing winnable races. That’s a long-standing tradition that also helps hide a lot of cheating the GOP does. Here’s what that comes down to: candidates willing to run. The dance floor is always open. There aren’t a lot of Bill Clinton / Barack Obamas that want to run, and people to the left of them even less so. Name a socialist running for the House next year.
You can see this play out at every level of government. look at the New York mayoral race.
Man, NY is fucking Mars politically. Your narrative is convincing to people who don’t know that.
The city that gave the world Occupy Wall Street ended up with a mayor who governs like Bloomberg with a badge. That’s not progress. That’s regression dressed in identity politics.
The city that gave the world OWS voted for “Bloomberg with a badge”. What’s your point? NY politics is fucking insane? That’s my point!
The truth is, the party doesn’t want progress, it wants control.
Bullshit. Of course they want progress, hyperbole fails you here. And all parties “want control” of the party - no shit. That’s what they exist to do. That’s how you get on the ballot in all 50 states. I’d imagine whatever parties are big in Scotland also want control of their party. That’s how it works.
Because if people like AOC, Bernie, or Turner ever actually got power, the kind of power to change how the system works, it wouldn’t just rattle the right. It’d end the cosy little club at the top of the left too. And they’d rather burn the whole thing down than let that happen.
I disagree, but I’m here for Bernie and AOC and anyone like them who wants to run. Bernie’s a fucking Independent, anyone can (and does) run on that - so why don’t they? Because in a lot of places in America (not fucking New York, will you forget about fucking New York for five minutes?) but in Albuquerque and Grand Rapids and Dumas and Tacoma the Democratic party gets it done when nobody - no other party is there to move the country forward. Did that make the news in Scotland? I bet it didn’t.
Socialist Party? Communist Party? The fucking Green party? No. Doesn’t exist, or, exists and is a giant clusterfuck. As most parties are, because they’re human-centered communications organizations with the potential of tremendous money and power.
TL;DR what you’ve got here is not exactly wrong, but it ain’t right.
Oof. Hey fwiw, I hope you guys leave the UK and rejoin the EU. But if that’s not leftist enough then, y’know whatever helps there. I would think that would be good but wtfdik.
This is a post talking directly to MAGA women. Right-wingers generally don't know the difference between leftism and liberalism. You gotta talk to people at their level. Being pointlessly pedantic doesn't convince people.
No, it’s just one group of rightwingers, talking to another faction of rightwingers, trying to take credit for the left’s work to increase their recruitment.
It’s not “pointlessly pedantic.” It’s crucial distinction we have to constantly make, because liberals have been trying to steal that credit for as long as there have been liberals. And nice job throwing in the standard liberal condescension, straight up admitting the tactic is to talk down to conservatives as if they’re children. Because that’s worked so well?
No idea why you think I'm being condescending, please explain so I can avoid giving that impression in the future. I'm just explaining something that you seemed to have missed in your original comment.
And credit doesn't matter when the person you're talking to doesn't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Talking to someone at their level doesn't mean talking to them like they're a child. It means stopping to think about where that person is coming from and using that to more effectively make your point. Empathy is an incredibly useful skill when you're trying to communicate with someone, especially someone with very different beliefs from you.
So why not just tell them conservatives accomplished all of those things? If we’re just trying to make them feel good, and giving credit to people who had nothing to do with it, why not just reinforce their bias?
If you are from the US, you have a fascism problem. You should push vocally for them to be severely punished, to the point they can't return to power, and prepare for the the alternative, that is less civil than that.
None of this has any impact on liberalism, or in my ideology.
My grandma just went to the town hall to get her driver's license without needing to take an exma somewhere in the fifties, so not really something they weren't allowed to do.
Count on the Internet to bring out the pedantic comments. "Liberal" is the word used to describe pretty much anything on the "Left" in the USA.
Keep making your divisive posts about the "Liberals" vs the "Left" though. Trying to make sure you aren't boxed in with any other "Left" pointing groups will definitely help bring people together to change the current state of things...
Getting people to not be conservative is how you change the state of things. Liberalism is a conservative viewpoint by definition in the us. It is not left wing,' as its not revolutionary nor progressive in any way.
Liberals dont want the state of things to change in a positive way. By definition.
It's really not, and I understood your kumbayah nonsense.
'Liberals' do not want to see the atrocities that the us does.
That is the difference between them and MAGA. They do not want to stop anything trump is doing. They want to be at brunch while it is happening.
That is the fundamental problem. Half of Harris voters supported Donald trumps 2016 immigration policy. As that is what harris ran on.
The other half was okay with genocide as long as it didn't happen to them.
Still missing my point. I agree with your stance wholeheartedly. It's a semantics problem. The point of communication is to get an idea across, and you're hard stuck on this pictures usage of the word liberal.
I don't know if you're not from the US, but I am, and what I've described is how that word is interpreted in the US.
That is semantics friend. You're describing semantics. We disagree on the meaning of a word, because colloquially it means one thing while it means something else in other definitions.
Also your analogy is bad. You're describing a generalization or the formation of a stereotype.
Correcting language IS NOT how you correct ideas. You correct ideas by making people experience a difference in emotion.
Liberals dont want the state of things to change in a positive way. By definition.
Liberalism - a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property, and equality before the law.
Not sure where you're getting your definition from. Seems like you're just kind of making your own up.
...the left wing of the French parliment was revolutionary. That defines left wing, leftist, left leaning, etc. The right wing was conservative.
This is where we get out definitions.
Both parties in the US are liberal. Specifically neoliberal.
Therefore advocating for liberalism, is, by definition, right wing. They dont want a change, because they believe they've achieved it. And by their definition, they have.
Liberalism isnt progressive. It isnt radical nor revolutionary. It was in the 1700s. It hasn't been since the 1700s.
Hey, I didn’t pick that fight. A bunch of super geniuses started shouting liberals suck in every thread and my position is they’re doing it wrong.
Count on the Internet to bring out the pedantic comments. "Liberal" is the word used to describe pretty much anything on the "Left" in the USA.
See all those downvotes from people who “disagree” with your well obvious fact? That’s bullshit. If people can learn new and interesting things from other countries, why can’t this be one of those things?
The answer I’ve gotten is ‘shut up, Americans should change the words they use’. As someone who’s said that often enough myself, I can reliably inform them that is not going to happen.
So they can either learn it or not, but it is the case. This meme being one small example.
If the same side is “liberals suck”, yeah that’s gonna be a fight. Why would people deliberately piss off the majority of progressive voters in the US? Unless they wanted fascism to win. Again.
I used conditional language to note that my statement wasn’t all encompassing and covered everything you just said, and the argument is that liberalism gave women all these things which - depending on the country - in the US isn’t true. Not sure what you’re trying to argue other than restating what I already said other than adding “laws were passed”, which also isn’t true for some of these.
My issues is that you are down playing the severity of women's oppression in the and the progress that has been made towards equitable rights and equitable treatment under the law.
you used the phrase "a bunch of these" which implies that great than half weren't laws or rules, and that is not true. Most (greater than half) were rules or policies. Additionally, this meme is very clearly about US politics, so don't pretend its not.
In no way shape or form did I downplay anything, nor was that my intent. I clearly stated there were societal issues that kept women down, and anything beyond that is what you chose to read into it. I threw reference of other countries in because I don’t know where you are and was trying to avoid pedantry, and I can see you’re straddling the fence between your own conditional language while attacking mine with pedantry. Ridiculous, you’re just looking for a fight. I’m done here.
1920 The Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified. It declares: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”
1922 Florence Ellinwood Allen of Ohio becomes the first woman elected to a state supreme court.
1923 National Woman’s Party proposes Constitutional amendment: “Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and in every place subject to its jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
1924 Radice v. New York, a New York state case, upholds a law that forbade waitresses from working the night shift but made an exception for entertainers and ladies’ room attendants.
1925 American Indian suffrage granted by act of Congress.
1928 Genevieve Rose Cline of Ohio becomes the first woman to be a federal judge.
1932 The National Recovery Act forbids more than one family member from holding a government job, resulting in many women losing their jobs.
1933 Frances Perkins becomes the first female Cabinet member, selected by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to be Secretary of Labor.
1936 United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries, 13 F. Supp.334 (E.D.N.Y 1936) aff’d 86 F 2d 737 (2nd Cir. 1936), won judicial approval of medicinal use of birth control.
1937 The U.S. Supreme Court upholds Washington state’s minimum wage laws for women.
1938 The Fair Labor Standards Act establishes minimum wage without regard to sex.
1946 The United Nations establishes the Commission on the Status of Women to safeguard women’s rights and oversee their global status.
1947 Fay v. New York, 332 U.S. 261 (1947), the U.S. Supreme Court says women are equally qualified with men to serve on juries but are granted an exemption and may serve or not as women choose.
1949 Women’s Paycheck Act (California)
1961 In Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 (1961): The U.S. Supreme Court upholds rules adopted by the state of Florida that made it far less likely for women than men to be called for jury service on the grounds that a “woman is still regarded as the center of home and family life.”
1963 The Equal Pay Act is passed by Congress, promising equitable wages for the same work, regardless of the race, color, religion, national origin or sex of the worker.
1964 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act passes including a prohibition against employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex.
1965 Weeks v. Southern Bell, 408 F. 2d. 228 (5th Cir. 1969), marks a major triumph in the fight against restrictive labor laws and company regulations on the hours and conditions of women’s work, opening many previously male-only jobs to women.
1965 In Griswold v Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, the Supreme Court overturns one of the last state laws prohibiting the prescription or use of contraceptives by married couples.
1968 Executive Order 11246 prohibits sex discrimination by government contractors and requires affirmative action plans for hiring women.
1969 In Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, 416 F. 2d 711 (7th Cir.1969), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rules that women meeting the physical requirements can work in many jobs that had been for men only.
1969 California adopts the nation’s first “no fault” divorce law, allowing divorce by mutual consent.
1971 Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corporation, 400 U.S. 542: The U.S. Supreme Court outlaws the practice of private employers refusing to hire women with pre-school children.
1971 Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71: The U.S. Supreme Court holds unconstitutional a state law (Idaho) establishing automatic preference for males as administrators of wills. This is the first time the court strikes down a law treating men and women differently. The Court finally declares women as “persons,” but uses a “reasonableness” test rather than making sex a “suspect classification,” analogous to race, under the Fourteenth Amendment.
1972 Title IX (Public Law 92-318) of the Education Amendments prohibits sex discrimination in all aspects of education programs that receive federal support.
1972: In Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, the Supreme Court rules that the right to privacy encompasses an unmarried person’s right to use contraceptives.
1973 Pittsburgh Press v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376 (1973): The U.S. Supreme Court bans sex-segregated “help wanted” advertising as a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended.
1973 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 and Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179: The U.S. Supreme Court declares that the Constitution protects women’s right to terminate an early pregnancy, thus making abortion legal in the U.S.
1974 Housing discrimination on the basis of sex and credit discrimination against women are outlawed by Congress.
1974 Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974), determines it is illegal to force pregnant women to take maternity leave on the assumption they are incapable of working in their physical condition.
1974 The Women’s Educational Equity Act, drafted by Arlene Horowitz and introduced by Representative Patsy Mink (D-HI), funds the development of nonsexist teaching materials and model programs that encourage full educational opportunities for girls and women.
1974 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Justice and Labor Departments, and AT&T sign a consent decree banning AT&T’s discriminatory practices against women and minorities.
1975 Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975), denies states the right to exclude women from juries.
1976 General Elec. Co v. Gilbert, 429 U. S. 125 (1976), the Supreme Court upholds women’s right to unemployment benefits during the last three months of pregnancy.
1976 Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190: The U.S. Supreme Court declares unconstitutional a state law permitting 18 to 20-year-old females to drink beer while denying the rights to men of the same age. The Court establishes new set of standards for reviewing laws that treat men and women differently—an “intermediate” test stricter than the “reasonableness” test for constitutionality in sex discrimination cases.
1978 The Pregnancy Discrimination Act bans employment discrimination against pregnant women.
1981 The U.S. Supreme Court rules that excluding women from the draft is constitutional.
1981 Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455, 459-60, overturns state laws designating a husband “head and master” with unilateral control of property owned jointly with his wife.
1981 Sandra Day O’Connor is appointed by President Ronald Reagan to serve as the first woman on the Supreme Court.
1982 Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982), establishes that public schools may not discriminate on the basis of sex without exceedingly persuasive justification, under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
1984 In Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984), sex discrimination in membership policies of organizations, such as the Jaycees, is forbidden by the Supreme Court, opening many previously all-male organizations (Jaycees, Kiwanis, Rotary, Lions) to women.
1984 The state of Mississippi belatedly ratifies the 19th Amendment, granting women the vote.
Ok, this is unnecessary and unfair to copy pasta this facts dump WoT. It adds nothing. Stick to the subject at hand, read what was written, keep it concise, and don’t read what I didn’t say. Y’all are hiveminding an attack on someone who is on your side.
Man, I have a smoking hot friend and she wants to stay home, make babies and cook all day. Don't want to vote, work, or be independent in anything really. Apparently I'm the weird one who thinks women should have an equal say in society (everyone, really). Kinda thought women like that don't exist, but apparently they're out there and there's more and more of them. They believe in primitive human society where muscle mass determines success in life and women exist to make babies. Oh yeah, and gay people shouldn't have the same rights.. for some reason... I think its cause they turn kids gay?
I'll tell you, it's always the hot ones that are crazy.
It's true. If you're a progressive who wants all the progressive things and calls yourself a liberal, you're the worst human who ever lived. The only thing worse would be to say you voted for a Democrat. I mean. We're on the left, not the super-far-right like the Democrats.
(/s because I'm told it's not clear what things mean unless one puts a /s in it)
You’re not helping yourself with the general broad stereotypes about women. Republicans and Democrats, processing is over there. This is efficiency in fascism, after all
Arguably, it's at least in large part the efforts of socialists, communists, and radical feminists that made some of these possible. But decades of vilification in the USA have made them virtually invisible to the general population.
Nothing like propaganda to make people to go against their best interests. I keep having to remember even decades is well after I was born, I can't imagine having the ideals of conservatives. As long as it's functional but there's no cost to not suppressing others, well there may be at some point when we're all on a scorching planet and have to make real sacrifices. Of course the old billionaires will be dead for the rest to deal with the fallout.... hopefully figuratively and not actually like the game.
Vilification that is alive and well here on Lemmy!
Hands up, who hates liberals?!
. . . see? Everyone.
You seem confused. They said socialists, communists and radical feminists. Not liberals.
I am confused as to why they'd misrepresent liberals like that yeah
Are you for real?
Da, comrade. Any likeness to other AI bots, both real and imagined, is purely coincidental.
its called calling out the spread of misinformation
also disinformation too, which is more harmful and intentional.
MAGA women do not want all women to express to those rights.
MAGA women want to control who represses those rights.
Liberalism is not the reason for almost any of these but radicals working against not within the system.
Liberals taking credit for others’ praxis is their praxis.
Or for the system. If the end result is that an election can be won by buying ads then all the work was for the benefit of the rich.
whom Supertramp from UK back in 1979—yet somehow not Lemmy today—recognizes as liberals
You're just being pedantic. In mainstream US terminology "Liberal" means left and "Conservative" means right. If you start using terminology beyond that the target audience isn't going to know what you're talking about, and you'll lose them before you even have a chance to make your point.
... You don't buy a credit card.
A better historical note would be to say .... to have a bank account
I think up until the 50s women couldn't have a bank account in their name, without their husband signing for them or something. Up until then, women couldn't have any money in their name in a recognized bank.
For common women that is ... if you were the ultra wealthy, you could afford to skirt around banking rules ... but as a common woman with a bit of money, you couldn't have a regular bank account of your own.
You’re right except for the year. That wasn’t until 1974 that women could open back accounts in their own name.
That's when legislation was passed ensuring banks couldn't block a woman getting an account on her own. Before that it was dependant on the bank.
Some do have an annual fee...
Between annual fees or interest, most people do directly pay for using a credit cards.
And even if there’s no AF, and you don’t carry a balance so there’s no interest, we all indirectly pay by way of processing fees.
Paying isn't buying though.
Buying is paying for ownership of a thing.
You don't "own" a credit card. Credit cards own you. (Unless you're careful)
You’re being unnecessarily pedantic.
Hey great idea! /s
Not legally anyway
Isn’t that because of progressivism? Liberalism is free markets and small government and all that shit. Stop letting the lib shits claim these wins.
Liberal is progressive in America. Lemmy mostly doesn’t want to know that.
No it doesn't. Just because they might end up voting for the same party (because there are only two fucking choices) does not make them the same at all.
I mean in the semantic sense. The AM radio waves aren't filled with vitriol for people that support a capital-based economy.
you have just given me a great idea for an AM radio program. Bigfoot Sightings, by Mark Foot.
Shit, I’d listen to that. Well. On podcast cause, no commercials. But yeah that’s brilliant.
You are describing Republicans, or at least what they used to be about.
Their explanation is a bit reductive, but they are attempting to correctly point out that liberalism is the hegemonic ideology of the US state. Republicans and Democrats have historically always subscribed to liberalism, as in a social and political philosophy centered on individualism and capitalism as its primary organising principles. The current success of fascist rhetoric in the US is another example of how liberalism and fascism do not have fundamentally conflicting interests as both depend on the formal exploitation of devalued groups to the benefit of the hierarchy.
Liberals did not give anyone rights, they were forced to find new ways to exploit groups when legal discrimination became untenable in the face of movements that managed to challenge their system. Think prison industrial complex in response to the Civil Rights era and Black Liberation militant groups.
Yes, and NAFTA / off-shoring in response to worker power, stagnant wages in response to women in the workplace, forcing social media to submit to spying in response to organization efforts, etc.
Neoliberalism -- the dominance of free-trade rhetoric, dependency on consumer credit and corporate welfare for growth, and diminished remuneration of labourers -- is more difficult to attribute as a response to any one factor in social or political change in the late twentieth century, though the persistence of union power and women's financial independence are certainly factors. Decentralization and deindustrialization in strong union industries had already been official state policy as early as the late 1940s, as well as state influence over media production and communications technology.
The Prison Industrial Complex is much more of a direct response as we see it emerge during the popular Civil Rights Era of the twentieth century with explicit use of the War on Drugs to target black populations. Racist Politicization of drugs was already deployed in the past, but this systemization into forced labour and targeted community oppression was a new way to specifically handle effective Black Liberation movements in the US.
no I'm describing what liberalism actually means.
Republicans were only about that before the Dixiecrats left the Democratic party over civil rights.
Unless you are saying the U.S. had a socialist majority in government when each of these rights/principles became allowed... It was the liberals you speak of that voted them in. Are we going to say Woodrow Wilson had a socialist administration that voted for Women's Suffrage?
The meme says “liberalism is the reason”, it doesn’t say “liberals voted these in”. You can be a liberal and lean towards progressivism, but that stil doesn’t make these things part of liberalism, it’s still progressivism.
Liberal doesn't mean the same thing here as it does elsewhere, it's a dumb thing to argue over. Liberal has no ties to who owns the means of production in the U.S.
I see no one complaining about how the paints were sourced in liberal arts. Words have different meanings in different contexts.
In this context it's people trying to claim people sound uneducated while really coming across uneducated. If you say different then never say that culture means anything nor exists when someone tramples someone else's.
Same word, different meaning in different regions
There's something outside of the US?
/S
A man gave women the right to fight rather than folks fighting for social progress is the liberal narrative we all grew up with. I mean you can hear the same thing on NPR when they talk about the history of Labor Day.
Progressive movements caused social change. Through political pressure. It wasn't given to us by liberals.
Clearly you aren’t splitting hairs enough. Take your good and add an “ism”… then multiply it by a couple “ists”… and finally divide it by purity…
And the result is basically the same fucking thing, but with a remainder that gives excuses for simple minded folks to disagree…
Yeah, sometimes it is just bargaining chips. Otherwise they have to classify the Richard Nixon administration as being progressive for voting to give women the right to open credit accounts without a male co-signer.
Yeah but their pastor said liberals eat babies. So deal's off.
They are trained from a very young age to obey and never question authority. It's pretty much part of the religion.
New Zealand, Finland and the USSR were the first to make that a reality. Spearheaded by trade union movements and communists.
The Soviet Union was the first country to establish legal equality in pay and employment for women, and then followed by the PRC and the wide amount of time of socdem movement in the nordic countries.
France was the first, with the french revolution. Then came the Soviet Union and after it the PRC.
To be honest this is absurd, but indeed the US was the first as far as I can remember. Having the right to drown in debt is good i guess.
US and UK did indeed pioneer that, but it was with more focus on married women. Actual acts focused just on women were implemented by the Soviet Union with collective property and gender equality laws.
There were little to no formal bans for that, social stigma was and is real though. Still an issue.
USSR pioneered that in 1918, with labor codes protecting working mothers. Followed by the nordic socdem movement and the US only in the 1978
USSR again, was the first to criminalize domestic battery in 1918. Although enforced unevenly it was legally punishable. Western Europe and the Northern America started it in 1970s with implementation continued to 1990s.
Many of the achievements listed are not of liberalism or neoliberalism, they were achievements of activists and unions working in a group to protect their collective interests. In many of the cases it was the Soviet Union with the revolution spearheading these rights, because the revolution itself was started by working class women. The nordics followed with their own social democrat feminist movement. In many things the PRC came before the neoliberal states in achievements of women's rights, and that is a state that was ravaged by war and imperialism for years. Liberalism gave little to nothing, it maintained the hierarchies, and silenced the movement. Both democrats and republicans both do not care about women's rights. They are both parties of the same right wing on the fascist eagle.
So this is almost definitely referring to social liberalism, not economic/classical liberalism which is an entirely different thing. Some ideas of social liberalism overlap with progressivism and even socialism.
The US happens to have two parties that are liberals - but it's two different varieties of liberalism. Republicans are classical liberals whereas democrats for the most part are social liberals
Liberalism means so many things around the world, it's a shit show.
What exactly could the women vote for in the USSR, or anyone for that matter?
I guess they can vote even today in Russian 😂
I will give you the feminism stuff embedded in the socialist system, that's true...
...you can have an abortion if you want to not have a baby yet....oh actually you don't have this one anymore.
[email protected]misspelling “radicalism” for “liberalism” is peak liberal Illusory Truth Effect.Get more radical, law-boot licker.
The problem is that a significant portion of MAGA don't actually want most of those things.
They feel that freedoms are responsibilities. They don't want to think about who they should vote for, or have to have a job or think about credit cards and budgets and bank accounts. And they're not worried about needing a divorce or their husband beating them because they figure "Well I married a good Christian man, that will never be a problem for me."
They say that now, but they'll be the first to whine about it when they're inevitably taken away.
LOL liberalism.
American dumb
Okay, but can I renounce them all to own the libs?
Hell yeah! Heck, in Texas this doubles as a yard sign for your candidacy!
They don't care and take everything for granted, that's what stupid people do. Also they think 5 min in advance.
See the people who voted for Trump and then were shocked that they or their relatives get deported. Likewise here: "the bad stuff is for other people and not me“ or some version of that.
https://www.latinosfortrump.com/
No, that’s all due to leftism. Liberals just took credit for them, and have prevented leftists from protecting them.
Okay but “leftism” is just a made-up word like “cromulent” and “hypothetical”.
I mean...if you want to be pedantic, and I always do, every word is made-up. That's how words work. Don't have a word for something? Make it up from nothing, or by smashing two or more words together (lookin at you my German fam 😘👉) or just borrow a word from a different language. That's literally just how words work. It's all made up.
So true. Or as William Burroughs said, “Language is a virus from outer space.”
Im a left wing socialist, living in Scotland. From my point of view, American liberals are closer to nazis than they are to me.
I live in a country that has free healthcare, free education. That took the two party system, and told it to take a fucking walk. And we did all this, while under the rule of parliament in England. Are we perfect? Not even close. Even the SNP, the party most directly responsible for all the good shit we have today, is invested with corruption.
But if youre an American, and youre waxing lyrical about how amazing the Dems are or about how amazing it is being a "liberal". Im sorry, but youre right wing and youre hated outside of the US by people who are actually left wing. I mean, youre left wing party is to the right of the fucking tories in the UK. And tories are, in no uncertain terms, massive fucking cunts.
Something to think about the next time you are looking at the Dems to be your heroes...
Well that’s excellent news for Scotland, and well done. The US has a little ways to go with that one.
One of the things that kibbles my bits is that people not well versed in USA look at the turd circus we’ve managed to inflict on everyone and think it’s some agreed-upon settled system. It is absolutely not agreed-upon other than we have to do something today so this is what we’re doing.
Here’s a little flava of what it’s like to support the only national party with elected officials who support healthcare for all, living wage, public transportation, free education, and scientifically backed public health and environmental initiatives: our party “is to the right of the fucking tories in the UK. And tories are, in no uncertain terms, massive fucking cunts. Something to think about the next time you are looking at the Dems to be your heroes...”
That’s what it’s like. So either people who state right up front that they don’t live here and don’t know what it’s like are correct that the Democrats are “to the right of the Tories” and “closer to nazis than [the left]” - OR - They’re wrong.
My position is the latter. But that’s different from “waxing lyrical about how amazing the Dems are”. No no. Nay nay. Dems are extremely critical of the Democratic party for all the reasons you’d expect and some you wouldn’t.
But Lemmy doesn’t need any help shitting on the Democrats, do they? No. Because most of them vote Democrat. They want the national party to do All The Things, All The Time and will never be happy with it except in little pocket of time. That’s what it’s like.
The thing is, dems are the only other party choice.
And while dem leadership is absolutely awful, there are progressives in the Democratic party. Like actual socdems and demsocs. The issue is nobody votes in primaries.
There’s lots of other parties. But the Dems sued the socialist candidate off my state’s ballot last election.
It’s moronic to claim the people setting the fire are the only ones who can fix it.
Link pls?
Just dig a little. The Democrats do this every single election. There’s no better options on the ballot, precisely because they spend a ton of time and money to keep it that way.
https://whyy.org/articles/election-2024-georgia-robert-kennedy-jr/amp/
https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-jill-stein-harris-trump-lawsuit-405e8bae8ff9becfa81a1360708d59a0
https://whyy.org/articles/pennsylvania-election-2024-third-party-ballot/amp/
https://dcist.com/story/23/08/07/dc-democrats-sue-to-stop-ranked-choice-voting-initiative/
Jill Stein was your socialist candidate? The party that very specifically, under the direction of russia, runs in order to help trump win? The party that filed late and incompletely?
I hope that’s not too complex for everyone to grok as to what’s going on there.
And it’s funny you say they “always” do that because they didn’t used to do that. Until republiQan ratfuckers like Roger Stone realized they just needed to siphon off 2% more of votes and the GOP would win everytime.
This isn’t the DNC gatekeeping elections, this is an offensive line that is gatekeeping the quarterback. Stunt candidates are a tool the GOP uses all the time - ask them what Ross Perot taught them. Or John Anderson. Scant, last-minute candidates who may or may not know who’s backing them are not serious political entities on a national stage.
Jill Stein? Really? Are we gonna do that one again?
You know, the real progressives are fucked, mate. Bernie was the key. The one chance to drag the U.S. into the new millennium with a bit of decency, fairness, and genuine progress. The kind of shift that could’ve reset the tone for an entire generation. But it was all scuppered, not by the right, not by the voters, but by the same gaggle of corrupt party leaders and donors so many still put their faith in today.
The Democratic establishment couldn’t stomach the idea of someone who didn’t owe them. Twice they closed ranks to stop him, all while pretending it was about “electability.” They said he couldn’t win, then worked behind the scenes to make sure he never got the chance. The DNC changed debate rules mid-campaign, the media ran coordinated hit pieces about his “temperament” and “supporters,” and everyone from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama made calls to make sure endorsements went to the “safe” choice. And for what? So they could put up a candidate who barely inspired his own party to show up at the polls?
Even now, the same pattern plays out. Last year, Nancy Pelosi made sure AOC didn’t get a committee seat that could have set her up for a presidential run in 2028. Instead of giving a 35-year-old woman in her prime the chance to build real experience and influence, the seat went to a 75-year-old man dying of cancer. Because, in their eyes, loyalty to the machine matters more than the future of the movement. And even after the guy died 4 months later, they still wont allow her get the seat.
And it’s not just AOC. Look at what they did to Nina Turner, Cori Bush, Ilhan Omar — anyone who dares to challenge corporate donors or question U.S. foreign policy gets smeared, sidelined, or primaried by DNC-backed “moderates.” The second you talk about universal healthcare, higher taxes on billionaires, or ending endless wars, you’re branded “unelectable.” Yet somehow, it’s always the moderates who lose the winnable races.
You can see this play out at every level of government. look at the New York mayoral race. The establishment had the chance to back real progressives like Maya Wiley or Dianne Morales, people who actually wanted to tackle policing, housing, and inequality at the root. But instead, they rallied behind Eric Adams. A former cop, drenched in real estate money, who branded himself as “working class” while taking donations from every developer in the city. The media treated him like the grown-up in the room, the DNC donors opened their wallets, and the result was inevitable. The city that gave the world Occupy Wall Street ended up with a mayor who governs like Bloomberg with a badge. That’s not progress. That’s regression dressed in identity politics.
And look at what’s happening with Zohran Mamdani. Here’s a guy who’s actually walking the talk, pushing for housing as a human right, calling out landlords and real estate money in politics, standing with tenants instead of developers. You’d think the party would hold him up as the future. A young, articulate, principled leader who speaks to working-class people and immigrants alike. But no. The establishment treats him like a nuisance. They quietly back primary challengers against him, strip funding from his allies, and pretend he’s “too radical” for a state drowning in rent debt and corporate greed. That tells you everything you need to know. In their eyes, the problem isn’t corruption. It’s anyone who dares to point it out.
The truth is, the party doesn’t want progress, it wants control. It’s built to absorb progressive energy, milk it for enthusiasm and votes, then smother it before it threatens the donor class. Bernie showed what was possible. Millions of people, young and old, left and right wing, saw a vision of America that wasn’t built on cynicism or corporate handshakes. And the establishment made damn sure it never got close again.
Because if people like AOC, Bernie, or Turner ever actually got power, the kind of power to change how the system works, it wouldn’t just rattle the right. It’d end the cosy little club at the top of the left too. And they’d rather burn the whole thing down than let that happen.
No they don’t. It’s arguable they ever did. What we do is support our candidate (Bernie, in my case) and then when he doesn’t win, we support the next one down. No faith involved.
You’re making that up, but it sounds believable. Oh, you’ve got names, quotes, dates? Well in that case yeah [that person]’s a real asshole and we want them to die. But you don’t, do you. Who said “we can’t stomach the idea of [supporting] someone who doesn’t owe us”? Hm? No one. You’re writing your own little political thriller there.
So true, and - couple of things: 1) that was extreme bullshit and we’re all on board with kicking Nancy to the curb for it. Is Ken Martin going to go on the Sunday talk shows and say that? No. That’s not how we do it because we’re a real party of actual humans. So you won’t get your proof other than what an actual Democrat actually living the US who actually votes is telling you. 2) That may be some sort of recognized path in the UK to run for PM, but here it is not - nothing prevents AOC from running except the age limitation.
Well no, but also yes the Democratic consultants (whom AOC famously elected to not employ) are all about losing winnable races. That’s a long-standing tradition that also helps hide a lot of cheating the GOP does. Here’s what that comes down to: candidates willing to run. The dance floor is always open. There aren’t a lot of Bill Clinton / Barack Obamas that want to run, and people to the left of them even less so. Name a socialist running for the House next year.
Man, NY is fucking Mars politically. Your narrative is convincing to people who don’t know that.
The city that gave the world OWS voted for “Bloomberg with a badge”. What’s your point? NY politics is fucking insane? That’s my point!
Bullshit. Of course they want progress, hyperbole fails you here. And all parties “want control” of the party - no shit. That’s what they exist to do. That’s how you get on the ballot in all 50 states. I’d imagine whatever parties are big in Scotland also want control of their party. That’s how it works.
I disagree, but I’m here for Bernie and AOC and anyone like them who wants to run. Bernie’s a fucking Independent, anyone can (and does) run on that - so why don’t they? Because in a lot of places in America (not fucking New York, will you forget about fucking New York for five minutes?) but in Albuquerque and Grand Rapids and Dumas and Tacoma the Democratic party gets it done when nobody - no other party is there to move the country forward. Did that make the news in Scotland? I bet it didn’t.
Socialist Party? Communist Party? The fucking Green party? No. Doesn’t exist, or, exists and is a giant clusterfuck. As most parties are, because they’re human-centered communications organizations with the potential of tremendous money and power.
TL;DR what you’ve got here is not exactly wrong, but it ain’t right.
Enjoy your nightmare, mate. Youve earned it.
Oof. Hey fwiw, I hope you guys leave the UK and rejoin the EU. But if that’s not leftist enough then, y’know whatever helps there. I would think that would be good but wtfdik.
yeah but "leftism" really embiggens the wordostrophe
You’ve really ponked on the big kamimbo there, no refutinating that.
This is a post talking directly to MAGA women. Right-wingers generally don't know the difference between leftism and liberalism. You gotta talk to people at their level. Being pointlessly pedantic doesn't convince people.
No, it’s just one group of rightwingers, talking to another faction of rightwingers, trying to take credit for the left’s work to increase their recruitment.
It’s not “pointlessly pedantic.” It’s crucial distinction we have to constantly make, because liberals have been trying to steal that credit for as long as there have been liberals. And nice job throwing in the standard liberal condescension, straight up admitting the tactic is to talk down to conservatives as if they’re children. Because that’s worked so well?
First off, I'm definitely not a liberal.
No idea why you think I'm being condescending, please explain so I can avoid giving that impression in the future. I'm just explaining something that you seemed to have missed in your original comment.
And credit doesn't matter when the person you're talking to doesn't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Talking to someone at their level doesn't mean talking to them like they're a child. It means stopping to think about where that person is coming from and using that to more effectively make your point. Empathy is an incredibly useful skill when you're trying to communicate with someone, especially someone with very different beliefs from you.
So why not just tell them conservatives accomplished all of those things? If we’re just trying to make them feel good, and giving credit to people who had nothing to do with it, why not just reinforce their bias?
The founding fathers of liberalism:
Got a source for that?
Like every US history book ever?
Are you equating the founding fathers of the United States to the "founding fathers of liberalism"?
The post is almost definitely about social liberalism rather than classical liberalism, which isn't even called liberalism in the US anymore.
The lie in that is implying that MAGA has any relation to liberalism.
Why you say that? Fascism will consume your ideology. We should probably tell them gently to stop that
Hum... Sorry, that's not how ideologies work.
If you are from the US, you have a fascism problem. You should push vocally for them to be severely punished, to the point they can't return to power, and prepare for the the alternative, that is less civil than that.
None of this has any impact on liberalism, or in my ideology.
Heheheh
My grandma just went to the town hall to get her driver's license without needing to take an exma somewhere in the fifties, so not really something they weren't allowed to do.
Apparently laws were removed as recently as 1976 in some states.
Count on the Internet to bring out the pedantic comments. "Liberal" is the word used to describe pretty much anything on the "Left" in the USA.
Keep making your divisive posts about the "Liberals" vs the "Left" though. Trying to make sure you aren't boxed in with any other "Left" pointing groups will definitely help bring people together to change the current state of things...
Getting people to not be conservative is how you change the state of things. Liberalism is a conservative viewpoint by definition in the us. It is not left wing,' as its not revolutionary nor progressive in any way.
Liberals dont want the state of things to change in a positive way. By definition.
Looks like my comment went over your head. You are exactly what I'm talking about.
I understand your point, but it's pedantic either way.
It's really not, and I understood your kumbayah nonsense.
'Liberals' do not want to see the atrocities that the us does.
That is the difference between them and MAGA. They do not want to stop anything trump is doing. They want to be at brunch while it is happening.
That is the fundamental problem. Half of Harris voters supported Donald trumps 2016 immigration policy. As that is what harris ran on. The other half was okay with genocide as long as it didn't happen to them.
Still missing my point. I agree with your stance wholeheartedly. It's a semantics problem. The point of communication is to get an idea across, and you're hard stuck on this pictures usage of the word liberal.
I don't know if you're not from the US, but I am, and what I've described is how that word is interpreted in the US.
It's not semantics to be against incorrectly used, inclusive language when it includes two groups that couldnt have less to do with each other.
It's like saying "humans sexually assault dogs." And being mad when someone points out that humans dont generally do that, just creepy zoophiles.
Correcting language is the first step to correcting ideas, and thats the first step to fixing undeveloped countries like the us.
That is semantics friend. You're describing semantics. We disagree on the meaning of a word, because colloquially it means one thing while it means something else in other definitions.
Also your analogy is bad. You're describing a generalization or the formation of a stereotype.
Correcting language IS NOT how you correct ideas. You correct ideas by making people experience a difference in emotion.
You are wrong
Liberalism - a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property, and equality before the law.
Not sure where you're getting your definition from. Seems like you're just kind of making your own up.
...the left wing of the French parliment was revolutionary. That defines left wing, leftist, left leaning, etc. The right wing was conservative. This is where we get out definitions. Both parties in the US are liberal. Specifically neoliberal.
Therefore advocating for liberalism, is, by definition, right wing. They dont want a change, because they believe they've achieved it. And by their definition, they have.
Liberalism isnt progressive. It isnt radical nor revolutionary. It was in the 1700s. It hasn't been since the 1700s.
Sorry bud. You said by definition. Then you proceeded to interpret your own definition using the history of multiple nations.
You can't go around saying "by definition" when it isn't the definition. Words matter. Maybe not to you, but they matter.
No, buddy, you read the wrong definition. I corrected that for you. Please reread and then try again.
By the definition of left wing, liberals are not left wing in the us.
Hope that is more clear and good luck on your ESL journey.
Hey, I didn’t pick that fight. A bunch of super geniuses started shouting liberals suck in every thread and my position is they’re doing it wrong.
See all those downvotes from people who “disagree” with your well obvious fact? That’s bullshit. If people can learn new and interesting things from other countries, why can’t this be one of those things?
The answer I’ve gotten is ‘shut up, Americans should change the words they use’. As someone who’s said that often enough myself, I can reliably inform them that is not going to happen.
So they can either learn it or not, but it is the case. This meme being one small example.
Agreed. People are trying so hard to be correct that they don't want to be on the same side, they'd rather pick a flight.
If the same side is “liberals suck”, yeah that’s gonna be a fight. Why would people deliberately piss off the majority of progressive voters in the US? Unless they wanted fascism to win. Again.
Buy a credit card?
Anyway, a bunch of these weren’t laws or rules, but certainly actively discouraged by male society or simply made legally difficult.
Most of these were laws, policies, or rules, and laws were passed to change them.
I used conditional language to note that my statement wasn’t all encompassing and covered everything you just said, and the argument is that liberalism gave women all these things which - depending on the country - in the US isn’t true. Not sure what you’re trying to argue other than restating what I already said other than adding “laws were passed”, which also isn’t true for some of these.
My issues is that you are down playing the severity of women's oppression in the and the progress that has been made towards equitable rights and equitable treatment under the law.
you used the phrase "a bunch of these" which implies that great than half weren't laws or rules, and that is not true. Most (greater than half) were rules or policies. Additionally, this meme is very clearly about US politics, so don't pretend its not.
In no way shape or form did I downplay anything, nor was that my intent. I clearly stated there were societal issues that kept women down, and anything beyond that is what you chose to read into it. I threw reference of other countries in because I don’t know where you are and was trying to avoid pedantry, and I can see you’re straddling the fence between your own conditional language while attacking mine with pedantry. Ridiculous, you’re just looking for a fight. I’m done here.
1920 The Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified. It declares: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”
1922 Florence Ellinwood Allen of Ohio becomes the first woman elected to a state supreme court.
1923 National Woman’s Party proposes Constitutional amendment: “Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and in every place subject to its jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
1924 Radice v. New York, a New York state case, upholds a law that forbade waitresses from working the night shift but made an exception for entertainers and ladies’ room attendants.
1925 American Indian suffrage granted by act of Congress.
1928 Genevieve Rose Cline of Ohio becomes the first woman to be a federal judge.
1932 The National Recovery Act forbids more than one family member from holding a government job, resulting in many women losing their jobs.
1933 Frances Perkins becomes the first female Cabinet member, selected by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to be Secretary of Labor.
1936 United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries, 13 F. Supp.334 (E.D.N.Y 1936) aff’d 86 F 2d 737 (2nd Cir. 1936), won judicial approval of medicinal use of birth control.
1937 The U.S. Supreme Court upholds Washington state’s minimum wage laws for women.
1938 The Fair Labor Standards Act establishes minimum wage without regard to sex.
1946 The United Nations establishes the Commission on the Status of Women to safeguard women’s rights and oversee their global status.
1947 Fay v. New York, 332 U.S. 261 (1947), the U.S. Supreme Court says women are equally qualified with men to serve on juries but are granted an exemption and may serve or not as women choose.
1949 Women’s Paycheck Act (California)
1961 In Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 (1961): The U.S. Supreme Court upholds rules adopted by the state of Florida that made it far less likely for women than men to be called for jury service on the grounds that a “woman is still regarded as the center of home and family life.”
1963 The Equal Pay Act is passed by Congress, promising equitable wages for the same work, regardless of the race, color, religion, national origin or sex of the worker.
1964 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act passes including a prohibition against employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex.
1965 Weeks v. Southern Bell, 408 F. 2d. 228 (5th Cir. 1969), marks a major triumph in the fight against restrictive labor laws and company regulations on the hours and conditions of women’s work, opening many previously male-only jobs to women.
1965 In Griswold v Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, the Supreme Court overturns one of the last state laws prohibiting the prescription or use of contraceptives by married couples.
1968 Executive Order 11246 prohibits sex discrimination by government contractors and requires affirmative action plans for hiring women.
1969 In Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, 416 F. 2d 711 (7th Cir.1969), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rules that women meeting the physical requirements can work in many jobs that had been for men only.
1969 California adopts the nation’s first “no fault” divorce law, allowing divorce by mutual consent.
1971 Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corporation, 400 U.S. 542: The U.S. Supreme Court outlaws the practice of private employers refusing to hire women with pre-school children.
1971 Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71: The U.S. Supreme Court holds unconstitutional a state law (Idaho) establishing automatic preference for males as administrators of wills. This is the first time the court strikes down a law treating men and women differently. The Court finally declares women as “persons,” but uses a “reasonableness” test rather than making sex a “suspect classification,” analogous to race, under the Fourteenth Amendment.
1972 Title IX (Public Law 92-318) of the Education Amendments prohibits sex discrimination in all aspects of education programs that receive federal support.
1972: In Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, the Supreme Court rules that the right to privacy encompasses an unmarried person’s right to use contraceptives.
1973 Pittsburgh Press v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376 (1973): The U.S. Supreme Court bans sex-segregated “help wanted” advertising as a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended.
1973 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 and Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179: The U.S. Supreme Court declares that the Constitution protects women’s right to terminate an early pregnancy, thus making abortion legal in the U.S.
1974 Housing discrimination on the basis of sex and credit discrimination against women are outlawed by Congress.
1974 Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974), determines it is illegal to force pregnant women to take maternity leave on the assumption they are incapable of working in their physical condition.
1974 The Women’s Educational Equity Act, drafted by Arlene Horowitz and introduced by Representative Patsy Mink (D-HI), funds the development of nonsexist teaching materials and model programs that encourage full educational opportunities for girls and women.
1974 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Justice and Labor Departments, and AT&T sign a consent decree banning AT&T’s discriminatory practices against women and minorities.
1975 Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975), denies states the right to exclude women from juries.
1976 General Elec. Co v. Gilbert, 429 U. S. 125 (1976), the Supreme Court upholds women’s right to unemployment benefits during the last three months of pregnancy.
1976 Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190: The U.S. Supreme Court declares unconstitutional a state law permitting 18 to 20-year-old females to drink beer while denying the rights to men of the same age. The Court establishes new set of standards for reviewing laws that treat men and women differently—an “intermediate” test stricter than the “reasonableness” test for constitutionality in sex discrimination cases.
1978 The Pregnancy Discrimination Act bans employment discrimination against pregnant women.
1981 The U.S. Supreme Court rules that excluding women from the draft is constitutional.
1981 Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455, 459-60, overturns state laws designating a husband “head and master” with unilateral control of property owned jointly with his wife.
1981 Sandra Day O’Connor is appointed by President Ronald Reagan to serve as the first woman on the Supreme Court.
1982 Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982), establishes that public schools may not discriminate on the basis of sex without exceedingly persuasive justification, under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
1984 In Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984), sex discrimination in membership policies of organizations, such as the Jaycees, is forbidden by the Supreme Court, opening many previously all-male organizations (Jaycees, Kiwanis, Rotary, Lions) to women.
1984 The state of Mississippi belatedly ratifies the 19th Amendment, granting women the vote.
Ok, this is unnecessary and unfair to copy pasta this facts dump WoT. It adds nothing. Stick to the subject at hand, read what was written, keep it concise, and don’t read what I didn’t say. Y’all are hiveminding an attack on someone who is on your side.
Just saying that
Isn't right.
Man, I have a smoking hot friend and she wants to stay home, make babies and cook all day. Don't want to vote, work, or be independent in anything really. Apparently I'm the weird one who thinks women should have an equal say in society (everyone, really). Kinda thought women like that don't exist, but apparently they're out there and there's more and more of them. They believe in primitive human society where muscle mass determines success in life and women exist to make babies. Oh yeah, and gay people shouldn't have the same rights.. for some reason... I think its cause they turn kids gay?
I'll tell you, it's always the hot ones that are crazy.
There's a whole lot of tribalism going on here, woof.
Apparently 'perfect is the enemy of good' has been lost to time.
It's true. If you're a progressive who wants all the progressive things and calls yourself a liberal, you're the worst human who ever lived. The only thing worse would be to say you voted for a Democrat. I mean. We're on the left, not the super-far-right like the Democrats.
(/s because I'm told it's not clear what things mean unless one puts a /s in it)
Women everywhere don’t like getting yelled at, and this meme is yelling at women. Might actually influence the men in their lives perhaps, somehow.
So you think Alf was a tradwifehubbs who only ate cats when necessary or for the joke
Yeah, I guess, it wasn’t a funny show
You’re not helping yourself with the general broad stereotypes about women. Republicans and Democrats, processing is over there. This is efficiency in fascism, after all
Okey donkey i hope you don’t be a dick in the future