Lets Talk about the Temperance Movement

Lysistrata redux.

You forgot your epic greening arrow.

Did it bring us anything positive?

Look up the declaration of sentiments and see if you still find 19th century feminists to be sane people

Yes, unless you're a bitter virgin.

>le virgin meme

Every time.

If your husband was a deadbeat who drank and beat you in a time when divorce was rare and discouraged, then yes.

Just don't ban liquor for us sensible people because of your shitty marriage.

If you post /r9k/ memes expect to be responded to through normie memes.

Let's hear it, what were the positive effects of feminism?

Reverse the roles of men and women in early 20th century society. What would the benefits of male emancipation be?

I'm not answering you with direct benefits because it's the freedom of half of society. Do you want me to list the benefits of the abolishment of slavery?

>not having a right to vote is the same as being in bondage and considered a commodity

wew lass

Ah, I knew you were going to say that. It's a difference of severity, not of principle.

I don't know. I'm a (legal) immigrant and non-citizen and thus I can't vote, I don't feel enslaved because of it.

>they wuz gud boys just finna pass time
>they dint abuse their wives and waste their money, nuh uh

Imo, it had to be done. Alcohol seemed like a massive plague at the time, from what i read, and the fact that this poppe out in various forms, all across the northern hemysphere.
Of course, americans got hijacket by some pretty extremist folk, and that teetotaler bullshit influenced everything from the Prohibition, to a lot of modern neo-protestant churches gong full retard on it("Jesus&Co drank grape juice...")

Women using the only bargaining chip they have - sex.

This thread is already full of people yelling about feminism vs antifeminism and assorted other shit.

I think it's necessary to remind people that the prohibition on alcohol caused faaarrr more problems then it solved, and we still have unneccesary and stupid prohibtions on drugs and prostitution. All because a bunch of very dumb politicians wanted to pander to the early suffragets.

Oh yeah, one other thing, prohibition is what set most of the modern security state and all of it's infuriating infringements upon our rights into motion.

Fuck the temperance movement and fuck anyone who says they were "just feminists fighting for equal rights" they did more to make the lives of the average man and woman miserable then any number of drunken whoremongers ever did.

>full of people yelling about feminism

Well temperance crusaders and feminists were often the same people.

There was no TV, no Internet, hardly any recreation. And women had zero rights.

SO, it created a situation where men worked, then went home and drank a shit ton. While drunk most got foul with their wives and some beat them on the reg.

So women of this period supported prohibition of alcohol.

Makes sense.

They're the reason we have the NFA, and tax stamps for metal pipes. I hope they're happy, exchanging rights for an imagined safety.

> we still have unneccesary and stupid prohibtions on drugs and prostitution

I agree with you on the prostitution. I can't agree with the drug thing however. See, there are some drugs that are made with the purpose of destroying the mind, they fuck you up so hard that you can barely be considered human anymore. I'm not talking about weed, this is kid's play. I'm not for the liberation of all drugs, I just don't care if it's one or another. Synthetic drugs do far more damage than natural ones and even natural ones can fuck you up if you don't know how to dose.

Harm reduction is the rational answer.

You can set up a program where severely addicted junkies get just get a prescription for heroin, and because there are no dirty needles, adulterants, or inconsistent dosage, the junkies end up much more healthy than they would be without a supply of medical quality smack.

This, obviously, won't be allowed to happen because American politics is dominated by thought terminating cliches rather than serious education and debate.

>DRUGS ARE BAD
>WE NEED TO BE TOUGH ON CRIME

We have something like that in Canada.
The government tried to shut it down, even though everyone, even the VPD police chief was in support of it.

Have the safe injection sites really helped though?
Seems like all it does is prolong drug addiction

Just like you are wasting your time here,huh?

Temperance at the time seemed like a good enough idea to a lot of people. People were just starting to see the effects of long term alcoholism. If were the farmers wife, and every time he drank he beat me and the kids senseless, I'd want to ban alcohol too. At least liquor

They've certainly helped cut down on deaths. Everyone wants druggies to kick their habit, but its a bit hard to help someone do so if they're a corpse rotting in some back alley.

Great they can vote. Will you shut up now?

The masses are too stupid to left with that kind of agency. I'm speaking from experience..

The thing is, showing the general public what drug addiction actually looks like tends to discourage drug use.

Countries that introduce safe injection sites seem to have heroin use go down, just because nobody wants to end up like the doomed souls they see down at the old clinic.

Americans were famous drunks back in the day.

Your average American consumed several times more alcohol on average than his European counterpart did in the early 1800s, and most of it in the form of liquor as opposed to Europeans propensity towards beer. While alcohol consumption would slide steadily up to prohibition Americans were still prolific drinkers.

This was a time where women had difficult obtaining employment, worked for meager wages, and often found it impossible to juggle steady employment with their domestic chores (which during this time very well might include sewing your entire family's clothes. cooking all your family's food from scratch, all the washing, and much if not all of the child-rearing). It's easy to see why there were so many men and women willing to rally to the call against drunkenness when dead-beat husbands were drinking their families out of hearth and home, and often abusing their families over whom they had near total legal control.

Wasn't the Prohibition done mainly to counter alcohol-based crime, ie, moonshining, gang wars and the like?

>>They're the reason we have the NFA, and tax stamps for metal pipes.
Thanks, I completely forgot to mention they also helped to get gun grabbing bullshit going too, albeit indirectly.

I can't imagine a sober poor man would be less likely to beat his wife than a drunk poor man

There were organizations (mostly church based) championing prohibition since the early 1800s. It was a religious and social movement that gradually picked up steam over the course of almost a century.

Moonshining wasn't illegal. In fact, many early American grain farmers would distill their produce into alcohol because it was easier to store and ship when they lived far from any roads or canals. Moonshine was almost as good as gold.

Organized crime was largely a by-product of prohibition and the profitability of bootlegging and rum-running.

I'll get flak for this here, but it had pros and cons.

Today we look at Prohibition and consider it a gigantic joke and a failure, but the temperance movement was not a complete failure just because Prohibition ultimately did not work. Drunkenness was a real problem back in those days not comparable to how it is now.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Prohibition was meant to curb organized crime that was centered around moonshining and rumrunning.

The temperance movement's existence is very unfortunate, though.

>Prohibition was meant to curb organized crime that was centered around moonshining and rumrunning.

Not at all. Those activities only existed BECAUSE of prohibition. They are a by-product. There wasn't such a thing as bootlegging and rum-running before prohibition because there was legal alcohol being made and sold everywhere domestically.

Prohibition was inadvertently a huge BOON for organized crime, it practically created it on a large scale.

Prohibition was meant to stop drunkenness and bring the country inline with the moral virtues of temperance. It was a very religious movement.

100% wrong. Lax drug laws that focus on treating addicts are far more effective than harsh drug laws.
Alcohol prohibition was shit for the same reason current drug prohibition is shit. It puts the market in the hands of violent criminals that are willing to kill for a quick buck. They don't mind selling low quality (or just plain hazardous) products as long as they get their money. The result is a large amount of organized violence and a lot of dead or sick users that are afraid to seek treatment.
See: Portugal and the Netherlands for examples of lax drug laws lowering consumption and death rates (fucking Google it, there's like 10 billion articles on the subject).

You fell for the "natural drugs good, synthetic ones bad" meme.
It ultimately all comes down to the user, not the psychoactive ingredience.

What is said there that is regrettable?