Women didn't want the right to vote | Prof. Nancy Pearcey
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 дек 2023
- In this clip John speaks with Prof. Nancy Pearcey about why women did not want the vote.
See the full interview here: • "The Happiest Wives in...
Nancy Pearcey is a bestselling author and speaker. A former agnostic, she was hailed in The Economist as “America’s pre-eminent evangelical Protestant female intellectual.” Her work has appeared in The Washington Post, The Washington Times, First Things, Human Events, American Thinker, Daily Caller, The Federalist, CNSNews, and Fox News. She has appeared on NPR, C-SPAN, and Fox & Friends. She is currently a professor and scholar in residence at Houston Christian University. Pearcey’s books have been translated into 19 languages and include Total Truth, The Soul of Science, Saving Leonardo, Finding Truth, Love Thy Body, and The Toxic War on Masculinity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversations feature John Anderson, former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, interviewing the world's foremost thought leaders about today's pressing social, cultural and political issues.
John believes proper, robust dialogue is necessary if we are to maintain our social strength and cohesion. As he puts it; "You cannot get good public policy out of a bad public debate."
If you value this discussion and want to see more like it, make sure you subscribe to the channel here: / @johnandersonmedia
And stay right up to date with all the conversations by subscribing to the newsletter here: johnanderson.net.au/contact/
Follow John on Twitter: / johnandersonac
Follow John on Facebook: / johnandersonac
Follow John on Instagram: / johnandersonac
Support the channel: johnanderson.net.au/support/
Website: johnanderson.net.au/
Podcast: johnanderson.net.au/podcasts/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Website: www.nancypearcey.com/
X (Formerly Twitter): / nancyrpearcey
Facebook: / nancy.pearcey.7
![Eminem - The Death of Slim Shady [Album Trailer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/X0HIrS6kUYI/mqdefault.jpg)
The best thing about democracy is that everyone has a vote.
The worst thing about democracy is that everyone has a vote.
The problem of China is what has given rise to that. Trade with China has undermined parliamentary democracies in the west. We thought, in the 1990s that China would move towards the West, it didn't. Now, in order to survive we move towards China. Our votes mean nothing, the business of government goes on outside of parliamentary scrutiny.
The best thing about democracy is that voting doesn't change anything. If it did, we wouldn't be allowed to do it.
Democracy is the road to socialism
Socialism is the road to communism
A constitution based of law and freedom is bought by blood, it's not voted in by muppets and traitors.
Its time to consider weighted ballots.
I don't get the "best" part.
In graduate school in the 1980s I spent a lot of time reading private letters from women held in the NYC Public Library from the pre-vote days here in the US. I was surprised (being a dumb feminist) by how conservative these women were.
Truth comes in our lives one day, it's just about you if you want to accept it or not.
Can you give examples of how the women were conservative compared to men?
@@dianamills5243Probably not in contrast to men, but to our time. You need to lose your feminist lens and think critically for a change.
@@corystarkiller Errrr....perhaps you are projecting. I am not a feminist.
@@corystarkillerthat's a common Leftie tactic, to redirect and strawman comments their shallow intellects feel threatened by.
At the time, middle & upper class women understood that their best interests were those of their husbands'.
Moreover, said married women didn't want unmarried women to have the vote, as they recalled how shallow their own interests had been before they wed.
Quite a few of the early feminists were extremely wealthy women who parked their children with the help.
@sanniepstein4835
Doubt it. The wealthiest women have always been far beyond feminism. Centuries ago, if they didn't want children, they manipulated their fathers into buying them a place in an abbey.
Brilliant
Rights are not held in a vaccume there are duties and obligation that go along with having or exercise Rights.
that ship seems to have sailed
Yes, indeed it has.@@jenniferlawrence2701
Unless your a female
I believe that Florence Nightingale was emphatic that education was more important for women than the vote…. and as education at the time was mostly privately funded, that inferred that women should be building their own schools and doing their own teaching.
Fifty-odd years later, my Great-Aunts - with some financial help from their father - bought a small private school and built it into one of Melbourne’s better-known private Girls’ Schools. MCEGGS - Merton Hall. There was never much support for the feminist movement in that family. The women in it were too busy doing interesting things.
Wow, it never occurred to me that feminism was uninteresting and by inference, feminists were uninteresting.
I'm waiting for Pearcey to follow the biblical order to keep her mouth closed in public as all good christian women must.
Do you think that would make her more interesting or would her current role as a hypocrite suffice?
They understood reality through an entirely different lens than we do today. Back then our social and familial structures were understood from a Biblical framework. Not that everyone was religious or attended church (although a much larger percentage of the population did) but their culture and the ideas undergirding the social structures were informed by the religious sentiments of the generations that preceded them. They may not have directly connected their decisions against or for the new movements in those terms (religious), but they had a better understanding of the supporting structures of society and what held it together and why, than we do today, having long ago severed our thinking from this source of wisdom. The social pathologies plaguing our society today were not only unknown in those days but were unimaginable to them. Imagine trying to convince them that in the future men would be marrying men, abortion on demand would be public policy, and little boys can be little girls if they so decide.
Dead right! I am an atheist, but recognise the role Christianity played, if only by bringing folk together to think on a Sunday in church. I miss the time when Sundays were different and had a more relaxed feel with everything closed. Now people are on call all hours with mobile phones! I don't think a society can survive without a common set of moral guidelines set out in something like the Bible, unless it is a dictatorship under surveillance.
@lindosland. But consider that the fundamental assumption undergirding their thinking was, first, a sense of Transcendence, an acceptance of the idea that there IS a universal moral order governing reality and that this order descended from and was dependent on a personal source, God. It did not originate in their minds but was discovered by them. Our culture today has abandoned that idea first ( the existence of God) and from that assumption a rejection of any sort of moral justification for social policy is inevitable resulting in the sociopathy we now see informing all of our social, cultural, and political norms.
That was an amazing history lesson. I was expecting an entirely different conversation based upon the title.
This is an interesting and lucid presentation of arguments that are nowadays so unfashionable. Prof. Pearcey's book identifies that the opposition to female suffrage was based on a specific moral perspective. This is essentially the same as that raised in another book on this subject, one that I have read, and that is based on British opposition to female suffrage. It's Julia Bush's "Women Against the Vote: Female Anti-Suffragism in Britain" (Oxford University Press, 2007). There too, the dominant arguments are essentially moral, similar to those made in the USA. Women are viewed as the "moral guardians" (a phrase used several times by Julia Bush) of the family and of society in general. So the opposition to female suffrage is based not on any concept of male superiority, but on a view of the relationship between men and women that might be described nowadays as complementarian - equally important, but different. If women involved themselves in the dirty business of national politics (the opposition was mainly against the national vote, not so much against voting in local councils), women were liable to lose their moral authority. Fascinating stuff; and a striking demonstration that in moral argument, the starting point of the argument has a crucial effect on the conclusions that might be reached.
Indeed, in the UK rate-paying women could vote (independently of men) in local elections since 1869. Many women were themselves elected to Education Authorities and Poor Law Boards (as was Emily Pankhurst). That is why I am not impressed by the "moral guardian" argument that was used. The truth is that middle-class women knew they had certain privileges in society and were afraid of losing them.
Here in the uk, older women with land had the vote in 1918- the fact that some of these women didn’t want universal suffrage isn’t a surprise - because they were landed and powerful already.
Yes, I’m all right Jack often lies behind these facts
Yes they want the power but not the responsibility that comes with it
Interesting during apartheid in South Africa the leader of the household took his responsibility to maintain his job and help ,the entire family including any non white labour force very seriously and everybody expected him to look after everyone, without his income nobody got paid, fed or looked after with housing etc… this was typical during the 1970’s. ❤
I’m thankful I have the right to vote.
Frederic Bastiat makes a good argument against the logic of universal suffrage in his book "the law". One point he makes is if the government stayed in its proper place it wouldn't matter as much who voted, but because the law is being used to favor some people at the expense of others all people see the vote as an advocacy for their particular economic or political group.
How does he define proper place that allows for decision making without favoritism?
Sounds like a fairytale that has no leg in reality
Becau se before universal suffrage eg say England, laws were of course enacted fairly or Scotland where miners were in effect tied like serfs to a mine.
@@TheGahta governments originate from the individual right to defend life liberty and property. But when the government is given the right to tax income and tariffs (he calls it legal plunder) then the law has been used to make lawful for government something that is unlawful for an individual to do and so uses the law in a way it was not intended to function. That is to elevate or favor some at the expense of others. Which causes people to vote for their own economic or social gain and not in the interest of the community. You see this today with progressive taxes and goods and services tax, petrol excise etc. The law has been turn from protecting the voters interests to using the citizen as a common purse.
Frederic Bastiat "the law" have a read or a listen it's in public domain - it's a real eye opener.
@@youtubeyoutube936 have a read of Frederic Bastiat "the law" you'll see what I'm talking about.
@@TheLookingGlassAU the premise is wrong though, government came about to manage surplus ressources back in mesopotamia, the moment you fall for the "legal plunder" fallacy its lights out, but if its interesting to you then thats legit too.
Its romanticism of a past that never was though in essence
When considering extending the franchise to women, what is often forgotten is that at this time, most men also didn’t have the franchise. In AU, only men got to vote for Federation, yet these same men in 1902 voted to give the fanchise to women and to allow women to run for federal parliament (House of Representatives and the Senate), though this plebiscite exclude aboriginals of ether gender from voting in federal elections (until 1962 ~ AU's "Whites Only Policy")
You might want to check your sources…, Because aboriginal men were legally entitled to vote in NSW, SA, and Victoria by the end of the 1850s. That was before white women.
Sadly we did loose men’s authority and responsibility and our society keeps getting more and more confused sadly
"The Elephant in the Room"!!!!🤔
@@HarryF-tz5fo for reals sadly
Men should have responsibility. Women should have responsibility. And neither one should have authority over another.
@@pookiecatblue good luck forging any kind of society without a hierarchy of authority. If you have even one third of one example, it'd be great to hear about it.
@@Bobo-ox7fj Who said no hierarchy? Not me. You can read what I said again. For your information, we do not live in a society where one person rules over another because they happen to be physically stronger.
Fascinating.
I believe it would have been much better to make the minimum voting age (for both sexes) something like 30. I look back in horror at some of the things I thought when I was 18. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
It was all about war. They used the fact that young men were subject to the draft and sent into battle by politicians that they had not helped elect. It seemed to make sense but I agree with you (as a 71 year old man). I also learned recently that when the country was founded you had to be a landowner to vote. I think that requirement should have never gone away. You should need to be firmly invested in the success of the country to be able to vote.
@@danholtbk7008when I was 18, I was a communist who thought all borders should be dissolved and the world should live as one giant cashless community of trading. I also believed there should be no police, no military, all religions should be outlawed and no one should own anything. It sounded fair "in my head" at the time, but it is scary to think of how many of the current generation share the exact beliefs I just mentioned, and how no one of them realize that the only way to create the world I just outlined is by brutal force which could easily spiral into a world catastrophe (global Great Leap Forward).
@@danholtbk7008 It's called skin in the game.
Regarding this: _“I also learned recently that when the country was founded, you had to be a landowner to vote. I think that requirement should have never gone away. You should need to be firmly invested in the success of the country to be able to vote.”_
You've got the right spirit pops, but this is a big example of taking history out of context.
Landowners were also the primary bearers of the tax burden in that time period.
Unless we shift back to a refined version of it, like the Georgist land value tax (what Milton Friedman called the 'least bad' tax due to minimal deadweight loss), the rule should be: no taxation without representation, no representation without taxation.
Abolish things like VAT & sales taxes, and inflation/seigniorage as a de facto taxation method.
Plus, there have been historical instances where civil servants were banned from voting. One notable example is the Hatch Act in the United States, which restricts political activities of federal employees to maintain impartiality. While it doesn't outright ban voting, it places limitations on certain political activities for civil servants. These restrictions are meant to prevent any undue influence in the electoral process, where the government empowers itself. That should probably be extended to curtail undue influence even more.
The only exceptions might be high risk careers like the military.
Making voting more exclusive also allows it to be used as an additional incentive for recruitment that doesn't cost taxpayers anything.
It's the only way it can be just.
It also has practical implications.
When a majority, or a voting bloc, of the population becomes dependent on welfare to some extent, especially without paying taxes at all themselves, and can vote to shift the tax burden onto another subset of the population, it creates extremely perverse incentives.
These can extend to things like importing foreigners and making them citizens on welfare, even if they're not productive.
You even have politicians bribing helpless addicts with drugs in regions like India.
These voters basically become hostages of the politicians who 'captured' them.
The mistake with the draft, was that it was a thing in the first place.
The lack of a draft safeguards the nation against foreign military adventures of questionable value to national security.
If you want to secure your interests abroad, use proxies that you sell weapons to, with their own interests for fighting that align with yours, sell weapons to allies, hire mercenaries, rely on volunteers, both foreign and domestic.
Any nation worth defending will have an overabundance of volunteers in a true time of need.
_The fact that there will be a volunteer shortage for your typical foreign adventure, is a feature, not a bug._
This is also just in the sense of subjecting everyone to the same standard.
Whatever your class, gender, race, etc. you can vote.
The only problem you'll have to contend with, is people screeching 'systemic discrimination', because it is inevitable that groups will not be represented proportionally to their numbers, as a percentage of the population.
This is a big blocker, because it goes against the foundational values of (most variants of) modern progressivism/progressive-liberalism.
Also, things like the LVT system make the problems of unsustainable welfare states obvious sooner rather than later.
It spares future generations from dealing with catastrophic policies at the expense of us not being able to shift it onto them unjustly.
@@Freddyonacidwow, you really were dumb. No kidding.
I believe 21 should be the voting age and the draft age. However, I’ve become wary of the concept of the draft. It’s one thing if the executive branch cares about those being drafted and is only doing it to protect the country’s best interests, but lately it seems these wars are to advance the self interest of those in the highest levels of government.
Love Nancy, her voice is so soothing and she’s such a lady ❤❤
Did not know this. Very interesting.
And we’ve never been told about this. I’m 54 and hearing it for the first time.
If you're waiting for others to tell you things,you'll be waiting a long time. Education doesn't stop once you leave the gates of school,it should be an enduring individual task to never stop learning. Blame yourself for not being interested enough.
@@S.M.E.A.C Ok snarky, what do you know about me? I’ve never stopped learning about history. I’m a history buff and know more about it than most people. Just cause I had never known about the subject of this particular video doesn’t mean I’m not knowledgeable about a lot of other history. My comment was a statement about our society and things that it purposely neglects about our history in order to push a narrative. But believe me, I have a lot of interest in history.
@@tobystamps2920 because there is no gratitude for what we have. Some people are always looking for the next crusade, even if they have to fabricate one.
Thank you for presenting these ideas
Universal suffrage was only achieved by the sacrifices of all the men that fought and died in the First World War, for a country that denied the vote for the majority of the working class. People like my three dead great uncles who died on the Somme but whom could not vote because they held no property or assets. .
The transition from (nearly) absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy ruling with the advice and permission of Parliament, was a long process of negotiation and compromise driven by need. The lack of universal suffrage was not driven by a desire to oppress, but by a belief -reinforced by the horrors of the French Revolution - that giving too much power to people who had the least to lose would only result in anarchy, poverty and civil war.
They had a historical viewpoint that there were far worse things tgan not having the vote.
@@peterwebb8732 Well said. Too bad modern peasants hate history/facts so much. Useful idiots for our oligarch overlords.
@@peterwebb8732 far worse for whom, the ruling classes that had more to lose?
@@gooderspitman8052 If you’d read history, you’d know that it was worse for everyone.
No peasant, looking at the smouldering ruins of his hut and facing a winter with no food and no shelter, ever comforted himself with political considerations.
@@peterwebb8732 if you read history, you’ll find that’s not true. Slavery was abolished in 1833, but in Tolpuddle circa 1834, six men met under an Oak Tree and tried to start a Union, their act of dissent, ended with a rigged trial and deportation to Australia, so not so rosey for the Precariat.
I comes from a long, proud line of American alkies and we done never hurt nobody.
Nancy Pearcey is brilliant. I really enjoy hearing her speak.
Yes, it is a fact that the majority of women did not want the right to vote because they did not want to be conscripted. Unfortunately they were given the right without the commensurate responsibility. Clearly that was a mistake.
This has always been an interesting topic for me; the inception of the suffragette movement verses dicotomy with current misandeistic militant feminism that spruiks "matriachy" and a plethora of discredited doggerels
The radical pietists of the mid-19th century (in the US, the driving force behind the abolition movement) came to see it as government's duty to enforce morality on the people and enforce its performance. The pietists became the Progressives, including the Temperance Movement, of the late 19th century. In the US, the Progressives had a split around 1920, with what we now call evangelicals continuing to follow Christianity and the secular Progressives (on the Left in the US) taking up Marxism as their dogma. Both still fought to use government regulation to impose their morality on the society as a whole but now in conflict with each other for dominance. Evangelicals started losing ground in the US in the 1970s, but even as Blue laws were overcome, the Progressives imposed even more restrictive laws over the last 40 years.
Very interesting, thank you.
Clearly the mistake needs to be permitted and corrected.
Brilliant - fascinating. There is a trade off in every decision made..
My grandmother and mother both told me this. But it doesn’t seem to be common knowledge anymore.
I have been struck by the way the Bronte Sisters, often described today as 'proto-feminists', did not support the idea of universal suffrage for men, let alone women. This is revealed in one of their letters home expressing delight that the vote had been defeated. This video adds to my understanding of that, thanks!
Any books or papers on this?
@@skeletorlikespotatoes7846 There are more books on the Brontes than any other subject! You will find the letters in many of them. I don't remember who wrote that in particular without a long search.
I think there is a good reason this history has been forgotten or suppressed.
Good for some, not for others. It is NEVER good to suppress one's history because it is the only record we have of who we are.
Unless you're a net taxpayer you shouldn't have a vote. You could call it 'no representation without taxation'
I seriously support the politics of the original Starship Troopers book. Service for citizenship, and only citizens can vote, but there are also more stringent requirements expected of citizens.
Woodrow Wilson cautioned women in the US that if they got the vote they might lose other privileges and traditional deferences. Didn't realize they could get it all.
@@HarryF-tz5fo wrong.
I also think votes should be weighted upon tax contribution.
Sincerely asking, if a female works from 15-19; has 3 babies in 10 years, working sporadically. Is she allowed to vote? Or only in the years she has jobs paying taxes? This is the boat I find most home educating moms in.
Yep.
John, you might find it interesting to explore the doctrine of coverture, which undergirded the responsibility of men and which, after slowly being eroded in English common law, was finally struck from the law books in Australia in 1966. Under coverture men were liable in all kinds of ways for the actions of their wives. While many heralded freedom from this law a good thing for women the end result is that they have simply become more vulnerable.
I don’t know if a public school in USA has ever provided this context to the issue of women’s suffrage. Its as though we are not meant to know when family identity is weakened by the state.
Voting was based on a property qualification. The idea of those who had a stake had a vote. This meant each household got one vote usually the husband or next male head. It also required political literacy. There is no doubt universal franchise was not what many envisaged. Universal franchise allows manipulation in favour of bread and games.
Their premise was that most people are going to live in a family where husband and wife have a set of duties. Now that the premise itself is eliminated and families are not 'families' in the traditional sense, most of the arguments for male accountability do not hold, as female absolved themselves of accountability by training themselves to be content with pointing fingers. This works to establish agency but at the expense of cooperation.
Interesting
Yes New Zealand was the first area that had universal suffrage but autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland under Russian Empire, 6th of December 1906, instituted first unrestricted universal suffrage, as women could stand as candidates, unlike in New Zealand, and without indigenous ethnic exclusion, like in Australia.
Created In The Image Of God - Male And Female.
Equal In Intelligence - Different Roles To Serve, Christ-Like Leadership By The Husband Which The Wife Rightly Respects But Never To Subjugate, To Make Inferior, Or To Belittle As If Incapable Of Any Capacity To Think Intelligently Through Issues.
Much Respect For Pauline Hanson And Malcolm Roberts, And Jacinta Price.
Holy cow. Men dropping the ball, really, is how all this went down. Alcoholism, vote moving from households to individuals, dang.
I say men shouldn't vote at all... leave it all to women... it's pointless anyway... and if men can be house husbands, even better. According women, men had it amazing when they had a stay at home wife, let's reverse the roles. Come on ladies, man up.
Ladies need to step up their game and start paying for these dates cause with this atrocious economy, they sure ain’t gettin cheaper
As someone once said; if voting made a difference they wouldn't let us do it.
And they were right.
My sister makes a lot of money, pays a lot of taxes, and is single. Since she pays for government I think it's fair that she has a say in it as we are government by the people. If women don't vote, then they should pay ZERO taxes. No property tax, no income tax, no excise tax, nothing.
The problem with the individual vote is that whoever has more kids gets more votes.
V, v interesting…
Really it only makes sense that there would've been a variety of views on it. Women aren't a monolith nie, and there's no reason to think they were back then either, haha. But that argument sure is interesting, I wouldn't have considered things from that angle.
You can either have redistribution OR universal suffrage but not both, otherwise the non-rich will simply vote for the wealth of the rich to be redistributed to them, i.e. socialism.
They were right. Most women should not vote. Look at what happened to the family.
Only about 10% or less will bother to educate themselves on the candidates and issues they're voting on. They vote for what they think is fashionable.
NO! NO ! NO!!
Women vote their "feelings"!!!
Men vote their wallets!!!
Woman vote "compassion" (foolish),
Men vote pragmatism (reality).
@@josephgriffin2388 I don't agree with you. Women are supremely affected by appearances, and what others think. They want to conform and be among the popular people, so they are highly affected by mainstream media.
I’ve been a registered independent since I was 19. Read up on all candidates. My husband does not.
@@Recoveringred You're in the 10% who will educate themselves.
Service garantees citizenship,would you like to know more....
Noblesse oblige.
Were single men a minority and a really small one at that back in the 1910's?
“Your commenters” are thought provoking people IMHO
I've learned listeners, for the greater part, mirror their teacher. Go listen to a strange podcaster and read the comments. Birds of a feather...
Sorry, if you don't want to vote, don't vote. But i appreciate my right to vote.
Interesting. Bringing aspects of life from other spheres into the public sphere has the effect of undermining those other spheres and inserting the pull-and-shove of the marketplace. So now women are at war with men, and the increase of individual freedom seems an empty victory.
Go South Australia!!
TBH, Men don't want to vote, either.
Here's a question. If indeed it was all about a "family vote",. why was it only men who had that family vote? Why didn't women have the family vote? Obviously there was something greater at play than just "women fearing men would vote as individuals". As far as why women did not want the right to vote, there's certainly no evidence presented in this video that was the case. Many women fought very hard, over many years, to secure the vote. Yes, they did want it.
Easy. Men were, and always have been the leader, protector, and provider of the home, among other things. Women "fearing" men bc of a vote is a projection with no evidence on your part. It's easy to see things through the lens of today and completely disregard thinking of times past.
It's understandable how it might be viewed that the family was just the smallest official political body in a federalist hierarchy, but in the end you always end up with individuals who have individual interests.
Framing the pater familias as a benign figure who knows what’s best for his family is a concept of male dominated society and women were, for centuries, raised to not question this even in the most dire circumstances. Naturally, many women did not support suffrage because they’d have to challenge the status quo and, in some (if not many) cases, face at least a ‘correctional’ beating.
The ladies of the Temperance Movement were heroines.
A lot of reaching going on there. You're protecting your thinking onto others.
*Some* women didn't want the vote, this is true.
But in periods of change there will always be those, even those who will benefit from the change, who will resist it and defend the status quo.
And yet it was an unmitigated disaster for all involved.
@@cryptojihadi265
That's your opinion
@@ellie698 No. by literally every measurable objective, it's been an unmitigated disaster for all.
@@cryptojihadi265
That is YOUR opinion.
You have given no reasons or evidence, only your opinion.
Oh, and women at the time also wanted to remain chattel. Did Prof. Pearcey discover this as well?
I’m glad that we are allowed to vote though otherwise we’d be living in the handmaidens tale
Because once men achieved universal male suffrage extended it to women too. That’s the oppressive patriarchy for you.
now you get to work on minimum wage, get used on dating apps and men no longer need to shape up and put effort in wooo
Did you actually watch the whole video? Or did you miss the part where she talks about alcoholic husbands beating their wives? Sounds like Women had it so good back then huh?
Men drank three times as much as they do today hence there being Women run temperance unions you fool.
@@Abstractpossom pretty much. Men were freed, society has been suffering and on the decline since, only held up by the ever slowing technological progress and this time it's women who have to save it... good luck.
This is a completely ridiculous claim.
Truth always triggers the fck out of feminists.
just because you dont want to believe it doesnt mean its not literal history. Im sorry in todays society we feel its okay to alter history based on our emotions haha
General Minh Sun : You're my heart, you're my soul
I keep it shining everywhere I go
I'll be holding you forever
Stay with you together
John Anderson: Japan a very rich country.