They did all wear crotchless underwear. To many petticoats to mess around with such things. OF course such dresses were never worn by women who sullied themselves with work.
So I disagree with Darat. We are meant to be discussing racism in this thread. In the sense that we're meant to be discussing whatever comparisons we think might inform the central questions of the thread.
I have no doubt they did, including for the mill workers mentioned upthread, for example. A lack of public facilities I can accept, and the image of the Victorian lady squatting over the gutter is fairly well know, but caveman1917 seems to have extended the public place reality to the workplace reality, and that's a load of nonsense.
I have no doubt they did, including for the mill workers mentioned upthread, for example. A lack of public facilities I can accept, and the image of the Victorian lady squatting over the gutter is fairly well known, but caveman1917 seems to have extended the public place reality to the workplace reality, and that's a load of nonsense.
He also has understated the number of women - and married women - in organised employment in those days, but seems to have missed the rebuttal to his claim.
On a Navy ship, it would get complicated. The berthing areas where the crew sleeps are very close quarters. https://bit.ly/2MRuANT
Typically 3 racks high and 50-100 racks in each compartment. The heads and showers likewise. So if public restrooms are an issue, it would definitely be an issue in the Navy. They can't have their own private room of course, unless they are very high in rank. So they will have to live and share facilities with either male or female sailors.
I have no doubt they did, including for the mill workers mentioned upthread, for example. A lack of public facilities I can accept, and the image of the Victorian lady squatting over the gutter is fairly well known, but caveman1917 seems to have extended the public place reality to the workplace reality, and that's a load of nonsense.
At least some would use the men's facilities at the workplace. But outside of that going in the bushes was the way to go if they had to be out for longer than they could hold their bladders.
Indeed, I remember having seen in some feminist history book a very early flyer that was being distributed which demanded women's facilities in the workplace because of peeping tom's problems when they used the men's.
GlennB said:
He also has understated the number of women - and married women - in organised employment in those days, but seems to have missed the rebuttal to his claim.
Thread continued from here. You may quote from that thread freely in this one.
Posted By: Loss Leader
Yes, as anyone can read the reference states "The race element was emphasized in order that property-holders could get the support of the majority of white laborers and make it more possible to exploit Negro labor because they just didn't want the black folk to integrate."
Obviously. The question is why it exists. According to you racism exists because racism exists, according to me it exists because it served a particular purpose for the ruling class.
Racism exists because for most of human history it was a very useful survival trait to be hate-filled at the sight of people who did not look like your people, because usually the next thing they did after seeing you was try to kill you.
Note: this does not mean that it is a good survival trait any longer.
You're signing up for potential death by doing anything. I see no reason to belittle people willing to put themselves on the line to serve a greater whole.
Racism exists because for most of human history it was a very useful survival trait to be hate-filled at the sight of people who did not look like your people, because usually the next thing they did after seeing you was try to kill you.
And of course if you're a mod or admin, it probably makes sense to be much more clear about what you mean when you jump into a thread and start declaring stuff off topic.
All mods and admins post only as members in all substantive threads unless they declare themselves to be doing otherwise. In Forum Management, it is the opposite. Mods and admins post in their official capacity unless they note otherwise.
Do not bring up a member's status as a moderator/admin in a substantive thread. It is off topic. Ignoring this edict will bring further mod action.
You're signing up for potential death by doing anything. I see no reason to belittle people willing to put themselves on the line to serve a greater whole.
Yes. Sorry to break it to you, but humans are a social species and very often individual humans do things in what they consider to be in the service of the larger community. It might be alien to you -- hell, it might be alien to me -- but it doesn't change that fact, and you deriding that choice for no other reason that those sentiments can be exploited or twisted for evil deeds sounds like little more than an ideological crusade by you.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
