Alans Posted 28 July , 2008 Share Posted 28 July , 2008 A good read of the local newspapers of the time will dispel the myths of "Golden Age". Crimes of violence towards women and children, in particular, were much more tolerated and punished far less severely than nowadays. There will have been wives glad to wave their husbands off to war and hope he might not return. Except, of course, with no welfare state and only the start of opportunities for women to work, many widows had little choice but to remarry. And as for the social ills of alcohol abuse - by comparison we live in almost tee-total socety. John I suppose the thing that hurts is that we pay these people to sit at home doing these things... Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Clay Posted 28 July , 2008 Share Posted 28 July , 2008 I suppose the thing that hurts is that we pay these people to sit at home doing these things... Alan Sorry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipman Posted 28 July , 2008 Author Share Posted 28 July , 2008 Sorry? Why are you sorry? Don't be. You resurrected my thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Clay Posted 28 July , 2008 Share Posted 28 July , 2008 Why are you sorry? Don't be. You resurrected my thread. Ta for the kind words, but I didn't resurrect anything. I just don't do resurrecting these days. I was just wondering what the flip Mr S was on about. There must be another resurrectionist about, I reckon. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipman Posted 28 July , 2008 Author Share Posted 28 July , 2008 Ta for the kind words, but I didn't resurrect anything. I just don't do resurrecting these days. I was just wondering what the flip Mr S was on about. There must be another resurrectionist about, I reckon. Jim Am with you now,"sorry?" as in eh?..... must admit wondered what was meant,maybe he'll come back on and decipher.Am sure it will make perfect sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zippy.72 Posted 31 July , 2008 Share Posted 31 July , 2008 Would women have got the vote if it hadn't been for the war? I suspect that eventually, they would but the war hastened the process. I don't think that society is any worse now, just that we are more aware of it through the media. To show how bad things were during that period, my Great-Grandma had a child out of wedlock whilst her husband was fighting in Palestine. The child was placed straight away into the Lawn Hospital at Lincoln (a mental asylum) just because he was a ******* child. I think that aspect of society is slightly better now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 1 August , 2008 Share Posted 1 August , 2008 There is good reason to think that the war retarded the votes for women movement. Its leaders formally suspended action for the duration of the war. This was not received well by all the women's movements sharing in the fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 1 August , 2008 Share Posted 1 August , 2008 Would women have got the vote if it hadn't been for the war? Looking at the history of women's suffrage around the world, the dates when equality with men was introduced appears to bear little link to whether the countries are combatants or not. Some countries predated the UK, others around the same time, others considerably later. A quick nosy at Wikipedia indicates: 1893 - New Zealand 1902 - Australia 1918 - Canada (except Quebec), Austria 1919 - Germany 1920 - USA 1928 - UK 1933 - Turkey 1944 - France 1952 - Greece Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now