The Cycle of Feminism

Exactly, why keep fighting for the right to vote after you got it?

And the ire after WWII was over was because after suddenly being fit for factory, etc work during the war, women (and Blacks and other minorities) were then told when it was over that they can go back home to vacuum or pick tobacco because the 'rightful' heirs to cushier jobs and the social progress they had made out in the public then were coming home.

The tag team is back lol I never said what they were fighting for during these waves of feminism, or why it started up when the wars ended, and that doesn't disprove my point. These feminist pushes still subsided during the wars, and when they get one thing they demand they move the goalposts.

Also I'm talking about feminism, so there's no reason for Vagabond Souffle to bring up the situation of black Americans and other minorities on this post (for the record, intersectional feminism is Oppression Olympics trying to co-opt the narrative of other groups and put the focus on women); not to mention that picking tobacco line is out of place in the 20th century since slavery was abolished in the United States on the 6th of December 1865. https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=40

That will require some time to research, I will get back to you with the long answer. By the way, neither did you prove your case that feminism subsided after they waves got what the wanted - there were still feminist campaigns after women got the right to vote from first wave feminism, they just didn't get as much recognition, and they became practically non-existent during wars. In this timeline of first wave feminism, we only see women being granted rights and privileges during the wars, not feminist campaigns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-wave_feminism#Timeline

Many feminists abandoned campaigning for the right to vote during that time and signed on with the Order of the White Feather movement, whose aim was to goad/shame men into fighting though nearly ever able-bodied man already was and they were prone to attacking men who were sent home from war because of injuries as cowards. https://www.historychannel.com.au/h100/white-feather-movement/

The short answer is this can be seen in the effects of male scarcity. When the men came back from WW1 and WW2, feminism restarted within a generation. But explain this; why didn't feminists in the 20th century take control of society right after the world wars despite the fact that they outnumbered men during this time?

(on a side note; funny that you say correlation does not imply causation when you seem to think it does in relation to atrocities done by religious people or groups regarding your hostility to religion, when in truth it varies depending on the actions being done and the religion in question).

Some didn't even try. Not to mention, as I said; women had the vote, they outnumbered the men and it was still a democracy.

To say it's very often a direct causation is overstating. Can you give some examples from at least two religions please? I'll explain one for you; the Spanish Inquisition wasn't formed because of a teaching or rule from the Bible. There are multiple theories as to why it formed and their code of conduct, as outlined here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Creation_of_the_Spanish_Inquisition The more widely accepted reasons were racism (an attitude and approach condemned by God and the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments, and also states that all humans including us Christians are capable of wrongdoing) regarding the rest of Europe's attitude towards Jews, a political ploy to help secure the Spanish Empire and seeking to escape Papal control.

Once again you prove your prejudice; you make a general statement about things done in the name of Islam but go into detail about things done in the name of Christianity; please provide specific examples regarding Islam.

The Bible condemns murder, so the Christians who you claim have murdered abortion providers are going against Christian teachings; the cases of abortion clinics bombed I know of were done when they were empty, please also provide specific examples of bombed abortion clinics where people died and killing them was intended. God hates sin, not sinners, your words are incorrect recital from a verse about what God hates and the exact words are "...hands that shed innocent blood." That's not a call to action, you're misrepresenting the Scripture. What it actually says is;

"There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community." Proverbs 6: 16-19

While abortion is wrong, those who blow up abortion clinics without harming anyone are also violating God's teachings. "Submit yourselves for the LORD's sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right." 1 Peter 2:13-14 We are to oppose abortion with legal protests and petitions, not blowing up clinics. Your argument against religion is very similar to the "video games inspire violence and therefore should be abolished" argument and just as, if not more, invalid.

The death penalty for witchcraft is like the death penalty for homosexuality in the Old Testament, remember the explanation I gave for that regarding it being a part of Mosaic Law? It's still a sin but the capital punishment no longer applies - not to mention there were people who were using the accusation of witchcraft to kill people for other reasons (this is the same time when in England under certain circumstances you could also be put to death for improper gardening).

In response to your previous comment... that's lazy of you; you could've listed any example of Islamic terrorism where the mastermind themselves identified it as being done in the name of Islam. I'll give you three examples; the 9/11 attacks, the Lindt Cafe seige in Sydney and the Charlie Hebdo shootings.

If people misinterpret Scripture and use it to justify crimes, the fault lies not with the Scriptures but the person. I know the idea of the verse as a call to action incorrect because I provided the verse it came from which as you and anyone who reads it can see is not a call to action. Now you're just going into denial. While the loss of life was horrible, the link you posted most of the attacks didn't result in loss of human life, and in the example you cited was an unintended death.
That's like the 2012 Aurora Shooting; the killer drew inspiration from the movie "The Dark Knight" though nothing in the movie promotes that (a Batman fan carrying out a shooting at a Batman film). But the film wasn't trying to inspire that and it would be wrong to ban the film because of that, so too is it wrong to abloish Christianity because some believers misinterpret or ignore the teachings to do violent things.

In the Bible when God uses people to punish other people, that only counts when God expressly tells them to do so and has reached out to the people being punished beforehand but they rejected it. Just because people feel like a teaching is telling them to do something doesn't mean it's endorsing it? By that logic, I could say something false like Richard Dawkins and everyone involved in the New Atheist movement advocate the murder of Christians and Muslims, but that's not true.

Again, the "violence carried out by adherents" argument could also be used as an argument against atheism, so stop using it against religion as that's a double standard, and let's hear these other reasons of yours. What are they? Shall we also use the murder of clergymen in Soviet Russia under Stalin as an argument against atheism? Or the Sutherland Springs church shooting - which killed more Christians in one day than anti-abortion activists have killed abortion workers and supporters in several decades?

Please read my reply to Octavia Melody, because I address your point there.

For you, not all of the jobs were cushy. For one, factory worker was a hard job. It was so hard that the female car factory worker mistakenly identified as the model for the Rosie the Riveter poster - Geraldine Doyle, miss "We can do it!" herself, quit a fortnight after the poster because she found the job too hard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Doyle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_the_Riveter
https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/rosie-the-riveter

You have a reply for me? You reply it to me.

I STILL don't do links. (I just recognized your name now, so you know).

Women and minorities formally excluded from those jobs manned (see what I did there?) them during WWII. They were also treated more equally at the workplace and in parts of society at large. This was rendered temporary after the war ended.
That's not opinion, that's what happened.

I assumed you read comments on each others posts and decided to team up on me, as evidenced by both of you being here now making the same argument. I explained how not all of the jobs were cushy. I saw the pun you made before you pointed it out; I'd ask you not to insult my intelligence but you'll just do it anyway (in fact, I think this sentence will inspire some puerile jab at my intelligence from you).

Why don't you do links? Afraid to be proven wrong in front of others?

What you said doesn't debunk my point. The campaigns were still virtually non-existent during the war then came roaring back some time after the war ended. Please save talk of minorites for another discussion, this is about women and feminism (in case you're trying to drag identity politics into this, I'm not white and if you're white and acting out of white guilt I recommend you stop doing that and just treat people based on words and actions).

For someone too lazy to reply, you sure waste a lot on redoing wall of texts 3 times.

Your point is irrelevent.
The injury visited upon your emasculated feelz cannot change actual history.

Calling me too lazy to reply, then writing a short response to my reply, that made me laugh. I re-do text because I care about grammar, certainly not the activity of a lazy person haha.

I knew you'd try to insult my intelligence but this is it; you've crossed over from annoying to pitiful. You don't offend me anymore. I feel sorry for you, that you think trolling is a worthy pass-time. You're so entrenched in your ways you don't change them and avoid anything that might debunk your views. You can comment if you want, but you're not going to troll me anymore.

I'll still reply to your comments, because I believe there is hope even for someone like you. I will also comment to stop other people from being taken in by the falsehoods you spout.

It's truly a bit sad to see someone prep to be insulted a certain way, not get insulted a certain way, yet still get insulted for it despite not getting insulted a certain way.

Do you sit in a meat locker to assure the maintainance of your prescious snowflake qualities?

I feel sorry for you and how much you're projecting. That meat locker remark was nearly funny.

And he's still at it....

Making a pre-emptive strike anticipating something that did not occur and carrying on as it did stretches the limits of projection.
Nevertheless, that's what it is, and that's what you're doing.

Go to sleep.

I meant you're projecting about the snowflake traits. Besides, in addition to not fitting the bill, I'm nowhere near a meat locker and it's summer where I'm at jks