I didnât say universal or 50% support. Many women were against, many men were for. My point is that it had a stronger support base than shrimp welfare before we tried to regulate it.
The idea that you can go regulating without considering public support/âresistance is silly
Sorry youâre right, you didnât say thisâI misread that part of your comment.
I still think your framing misses something important: the logic â50% of people are women so I think womenâs suffrage had a pretty strong support baseâ applies at all points in time, so it doesnât explain why suffrage was so unpopular for so long. Or to put it another way, for some reason the popularity and political influence of the suffrage movement increased dramatically without the percentage of women increasing, so Iâm not sure the percentage of people who are women is relevant in the way youâre implying.
The idea that you can go regulating without considering public support/âresistance is silly
On the other hand I didnât say this! The degree of public support is certainly relevant. But Iâm not sure what your practical takeaway or recommendation is in the case of an unpopular movement.
For example you point out abolition as an example where resistance caused massive additional costs (including the Civil War in the US). I could see points 1, 3, 7, and possibly 8 all being part of a âWays I see the Quaker shift to abolitionism backfiringâ post. They could indeed be fair points that Quakers /â other abolitionists should have considered, in some wayâbut Iâm not sure what that post would have actually wanted abolitionists to do differently, and Iâm not sure what your post wants EAs to do differently.
Maybe you just intend to be pointing out possible problems, without concluding one way or another whether the GH â AW shift is overall good or bad. But I get a strong sense from reading it that you think itâs overall bad, and if thatâs the case I donât know what the practical upshots are.
I didnât say universal or 50% support. Many women were against, many men were for. My point is that it had a stronger support base than shrimp welfare before we tried to regulate it.
The idea that you can go regulating without considering public support/âresistance is silly
Sorry youâre right, you didnât say thisâI misread that part of your comment.
I still think your framing misses something important: the logic â50% of people are women so I think womenâs suffrage had a pretty strong support baseâ applies at all points in time, so it doesnât explain why suffrage was so unpopular for so long. Or to put it another way, for some reason the popularity and political influence of the suffrage movement increased dramatically without the percentage of women increasing, so Iâm not sure the percentage of people who are women is relevant in the way youâre implying.
On the other hand I didnât say this! The degree of public support is certainly relevant. But Iâm not sure what your practical takeaway or recommendation is in the case of an unpopular movement.
For example you point out abolition as an example where resistance caused massive additional costs (including the Civil War in the US). I could see points 1, 3, 7, and possibly 8 all being part of a âWays I see the Quaker shift to abolitionism backfiringâ post. They could indeed be fair points that Quakers /â other abolitionists should have considered, in some wayâbut Iâm not sure what that post would have actually wanted abolitionists to do differently, and Iâm not sure what your post wants EAs to do differently.
Maybe you just intend to be pointing out possible problems, without concluding one way or another whether the GH â AW shift is overall good or bad. But I get a strong sense from reading it that you think itâs overall bad, and if thatâs the case I donât know what the practical upshots are.